Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review for draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-07.txt
"Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com> Fri, 06 June 2014 13:01 UTC
Return-Path: <nobo@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD02B1A007F for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 06:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1C9XuDAzzgkT for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 06:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C52871A0079 for <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 06:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4274; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1402059692; x=1403269292; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=yX8+IdaiosFssXwWZNuBhNnlD/LAgsSe/W7xNMN2BXU=; b=nLGkp7DXms+C06t8+Ycmk5nkpQcaBUvOHGEvZKCwzQ9VR0j1MWhTrblb zx1sfab1MUEBdcMszc/ogqJ/QwKdNESa8woZo/te7F6HQABsWYN6MhLA8 QmI5/2gvEei6OsmFyRbMM+H4Oq/RY8zTqehDS+zpX4OHoym4l7m5hWQDZ E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlQGAK26kVOtJA2G/2dsb2JhbABZgmkkgSuIM7QYhCODEQGBBhZ1hAMBAQEDATo/EAIBCCIUEDIlAgQBDQ2IMggBzSEXjXw8MQeDK4EWAQOtVoM8gi8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,989,1392163200"; d="scan'208";a="330901273"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2014 13:01:31 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s56D1Vrw008348 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:01:31 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:01:31 -0500
From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>
To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
Thread-Topic: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review for draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHParjLwVtxC//AK0+ZwUj+MRVcEJs2+T+AgB9wUoCADcvqgA==
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:01:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3941E1D9683@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
References: <536B77F8.8050407@bwijnen.net> <20140508130007.GP17758@pfrc> <5385DF43.1050408@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5385DF43.1050408@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.71]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mib-doctors/i2HqNAFcpaVM5sjG8wW80w7BqE0
Cc: "mib-doctors >> MIB Doctors" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib.all@tools.ietf.org>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review for draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-07.txt
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB Doctors list <mib-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mib-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:mib-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:01:45 -0000
Hi Benoit, Please see in-line. > >> 3.Same for: > >> BfdIntervalTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > >> DISPLAY-HINT "d" > >> STATUS current > >> DESCRIPTION > >> "The BFD interval in microseconds." > >> SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) > >> > >> > >> If you see it used in, for example > >> > >> bfdSessDesiredMinTxInterval OBJECT-TYPE > >> SYNTAX BfdIntervalTC > >> MAX-ACCESS read-create > >> STATUS current > >> DESCRIPTION > >> "This object specifies the minimum interval, in > >> microseconds, that the local system would like to use > >> when transmitting BFD Control packets. The value of > >> zero(0) is reserved in this case, and should not be > >> used." > >> REFERENCE > >> "Section 4.1 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional > >> Forwarding Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2012." > >> ::= { bfdSessEntry 25 } > >> > >> Then what value is added by using a TC. In fact you can even quetion if > it > >> is not conflicting, because according to the TC description clause I > would > >> expect zero to be a valid interval value, where as here it describes > >> that zero is a special value and should not be used. So it is only special > >> Since it should NOT BE used, or does zero mean something special? > >> Assuming zero SHOULD NOT be used. I personally would just do: > >> > >> bfdSessDesiredMinTxInterval OBJECT-TYPE > >> SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295) > >> MAX-ACCESS read-create > >> STATUS current > >> UNITS microseconds > >> DESCRIPTION > >> "This object specifies the minimum interval that the local > >> system would like to use when transmitting BFD Control packets. > >> REFERENCE > >> "Section 4.1 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional > >> Forwarding Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2012." > >> ::= { bfdSessEntry 25 } > >> > >> In case zero has special meaning I would do: > >> bfdSessDesiredMinTxInterval OBJECT-TYPE > >> SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0 | 1..4294967295) > >> MAX-ACCESS read-create > >> STATUS current > >> UNITS microseconds > >> DESCRIPTION > >> "This object specifies the minimum interval that the local > >> system would like to use when transmitting BFD Control packets. > >> The value zero has been reserved for a special maning: > >> <describe what zero means> > >> REFERENCE > >> "Section 4.1 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional > >> Forwarding Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2012." > >> ::= { bfdSessEntry 25 } > > The primary benefit of having it in the object is that we get to > > specify units. (I never understood why that was missing from TC.) > > Beyond that, it's just a refactoring of constraints in case they're further > refined. > Fine with the units explanation. However, you don't answer the discrepancy > of the value 0. > I'll file this in my AD review. > > Regards, Benoit Regarding BfdIntervalTC, I'd like to make one additional response. This is a TC that is used by several objects in the base BFD MIB. Zero(0) is valid in following objects: bfdSessReqMinRxInterval BfdIntervalTC, bfdSessReqMinEchoRxInterval BfdIntervalTC, bfdSessNegotiatedInterval BfdIntervalTC, bfdSessNegotiatedEchoInterval BfdIntervalTC, Zero(0) is not valid in following object: bfdSessDesiredMinTxInterval BfdIntervalTC, All above objects describe "BFD interval". And rather than creating a separate TC or specifying different syntax just in bfdSessDesiredMinTxInterval, we decided to place more weight on the consistency/simplicity (and describe the zero(0) in the description of bfdSessDesiredMinTxInterval). Thus the way it is, and I believe this is reasonable. Thanks! -Nobo
- [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review for draft-ietf-bf… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review for draft-iet… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review for draft-iet… Benoit Claise
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review for draft-iet… Nobo Akiya (nobo)