[MIB-DOCTORS] MIB Doctor review of draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-07.txt
Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com> Sat, 09 December 2006 06:00 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsvFu-0006jS-0c; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 01:00:14 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsvFs-0006jH-9o; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 01:00:12 -0500
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com ([131.107.115.212]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsvFo-0004LX-QU; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 01:00:12 -0500
Received: from TK5-EXHUB-C101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.70.76) by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.0.685.24; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:00:08 -0800
Received: from win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.69.169) by TK5-EXHUB-C101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.70.76) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.0.685.24; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:00:07 -0800
Received: from WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.24]) by win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2825); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:00:06 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:50:37 -0800
Message-ID: <271CF87FD652F34DBF877CB0CB5D16FC03A04E9B@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: MIB Doctor review of draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-07.txt
Thread-Index: AccbVfM8V3dcQ3XITZakUiBnTyt0ZA==
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Raghava Sivaramu <raghava@cisco.com>, James Lingard <james.lingard@dataconnection.com>, David McWalter <dmcw@dataconnection.com>, Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi@infosys.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2006 06:00:06.0092 (UTC) FILETIME=[466BC0C0:01C71B57]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2a76bcd37b1c8a21336eb0a1ea6bbf48
Cc: mib-doctors@ietf.org, PIM WG <pim@ietf.org>
Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB Doctor review of draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-07.txt
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB Doctors list <mib-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mib-doctors>
List-Post: <mailto:mib-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mib-doctors-bounces@ietf.org
I have completed by review of draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-07.txt, as requested by Dan Romascanu. Except for the items identified below, everything else in the MIB Review Checklist was OK. I have organized my comments into lists of what I feel are MUST, SHOULD, and MAY fix items. MUST fix: 1) Missing normative reference for IANA-RTPROTO-MIB as required by RFC4181 section 3.6. Citation should be added to last sentence of section 3 where it is mentioned along with other modules which do have citations. 2) ORGANIZATION clause MUST have the "full name" of the working group, per RFC4181 section 4.5. Per the IETF WG page, this should be the "Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Working Group" 3) The copyright notice on page 1 is now obsolete, should say The IETF Trust (see the ID-guidelines). The copyright notice at the end is fine. 4) Per RFC4181 section 3.6, all references must be cited in the text. The following appear as uncited references: [RFC3569], [RFC3956], [I-D.ietf-mboned-ip-mcast-mib], [RFC2434], [RFC3692]. These need to be either cited or removed. 5) Per RFC3978 section 5.6, the copyright statement text in the DESCRIPTION clause of the MODULE-IDENTITY is incorrect. That wording is only for MIBs that are IANA maintained. The other wording from RFC3978 section 5.6 needs to be used instead. 6) DESCRIPTION of pimInterfaceStubInterface uses acronyms IGMP and MGMD which are not expanded or defined, nor is a reference provided for them. pimStarGILocalMembership also uses MLD without expanding/defining/ referencing it. Was MGMD supposed to be MLD too? pimSGILocalMembership then mentions IGMPv3 and MLDv2. pimAnycastRPSetTable then mentions MSDP. 7) DESCRIPTION of pimSGRptIPruneExpiryTimer is unclear. What's the difference between a timer not running, and a timer having an infinite expiry time? How do I know which one to use? (I did look at RFC 4601 section 4.5.4 as indicated in the REFEFENCE clause, but that didn't answer the question.) 8) DESCRIPTION of pimStaticRPPrecedence contains this statement: If this object is present, then pimStaticRPOverrideDynamic is ignored. The main problem with the above is it doesn't say who it's ignored by, the agent? The management station? Presumably you mean the agent. Also, does "ignored" mean the agent need not report a correct value when read either? If so, it seems really odd to make pimStaticRPOverrideDynamic be a mandatory object, even for agents that implement pimStaticRPPrecedence, in which case pimStaticRPOverrideDynamic would be a useless object. 9) DESCRIPTION of pimAnycastRPSetRowStatus says: ... There are no other other writeable columnar objects in this entry." Typo ("other other"). Also, the statement is either incorrect or at least confusing, since pimAnycastRPSetStorageType is in the entry and has a MAX-ACCESS of read-create. Is the intent that the storage type is not writable, except during row creation? Please clarify. 10) References for RFC4601, RFC4610, and RFC3692 still contain an I-D filename and say they're works in progress. SHOULD fix: 11) The text in IANA considerations section SHOULD be crafted so that after publication it will serve to document the OID assignment. See RFC4181 section 3.5.2 for an example. 12) CONTACT-INFO clause SHOULD provide a pointer to the WG's web page, per RFC4181 section 4.5. 13) The top-level structure doesn't follow the RECOMMENDED layout in RFC 4181 appendix D: pimMIBObjects should be removed pimTraps should be { pimStdMIB 0 } pim should be { pimStdMIB 1 } (pimMIBConformance is fine) 14) Since the MIB module contains a whole group of objects (pimDmGroup) that are *only* used by PIM-DM, then the abstract should also mention PIM-DM. 15) What is the value of pimInterfaceAddress if the interface is an unnumbered IPv4 interface? DESCRIPTION should answer, or just add a REFERENCE if the term "primary IP address" is defined in an RFC section that answers the question. 16) Regarding pimInterfacePropagationDelay: the SYNTAX says 0 is a legal value, but the DESCRIPTION says "Implementations should enforce a lower bound on the permitted values for this object to allow for scheduling and processing delays within the local router." The use of "should" is vague. If this is to be read as a MUST, then 0 wouldn't be legal. Do you mean "SHOULD"? 17) Grammar error in pimStatusRPRowStatus DESCRIPTION: "valid values have" should be "a valid value has" 18) Typo in DESCRIPTION of pimDiagnosticsGroup: "additonal" 19) Typo in security considerations section: "encapsulted" MAY fix: 20) Could pimInAsserts ever wrap in less than an hour in any realistic deployment? (say with lots of interfaces, lots of groups, lots of sources, lots of routers on the LAN, etc) If so, then this should probably be a Counter64 per the rule of thumb in RFC4181. 21) There are a number of InetAddressType objects where the InetAddress objects have a SIZE constraint of (0|4|8|16|20), but the compliance statements (as allowed by a MAY in RFC4001) do not include any constraints on the values of InetAddressType objects (i.e. right now a type of dns would be legal as long as the value happens to meet the address size constraint). I don't know if this is intentional, but I suspect not. 22) Possible typo in DESCRIPTION of pimNeighborLossCount. One paragraph says "This count" and the other says "This counter". Should the first be "This counter"? 23) There's no reason pimStarGRPFNextHop needs to be able to contain a zone id, since you always have an interface index in pimStarGRPFIfIndex if there's a next hop. It's fine to allow one, just redundant. Same for pimStarGIAssertWinnerAddress, pimSGUpstreamNeighbor, pimSGRPFNextHop, etc. 24) Since there are no read-only compliance statements for writable objects, currently any agent which implements an object which is declared read-write or read-create MUST support write access. It's not allowed to support such objects for reading only. Is this intentional? -Dave Thaler _______________________________________________ MIB-DOCTORS mailing list MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors