Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-07

Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com> Mon, 05 June 2017 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <glenn@cysols.com>
X-Original-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5E7129404; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 03:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 F6AcEwQbyrok; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 03:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from niseko.cysol.co.jp (niseko.cysol.co.jp [210.233.3.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7CDF129431; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 03:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.200] (Lenovo-X1Carbon.win2004.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id v55AOFim027586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Jun 2017 19:24:15 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from glenn@cysols.com)
To: Hiroshi Tsunoda <tsuno@m.ieice.org>
Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "mib-doctors@ietf.org" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
References: <56E7D219.7000902@orange.com> <BLUPR0501MB17151A695785D4D8DD485633D4690@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <b4249e61-0a11-2ce1-c846-67096858fa2c@cysols.com> <BLUPR0501MB1715A3B288A27A39E99203B8D4490@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <c757a323-24a7-2696-657e-88f8e15e8a36@cysols.com> <CAPbjwkyFeX-S=sJwNMX-fgWThnMMiu_nF8xvcMow_BgJSfwsSQ@mail.gmail.com> <5e663cf0-1418-c410-bcf8-b235ee73fc29@cysols.com> <CAPbjwkyN0yLkpOXWt8D2-Niw7BCoujF+8JLjrPwgWobF03hZ7g@mail.gmail.com> <6f89f1f2-31e9-bf4a-05e9-1bb6e02f339e@cysols.com> <CAPbjwkyEnCGZEsGKjHozWmg-X-P3483=205BBGV9+DxbfJsDmQ@mail.gmail.com> <03f83a27-e397-818d-65e7-27f95cd6e6e0@cysols.com> <CAPbjwkzkKOULh98QBmbArFWXv=o_pyd7J82u7_GvwkWELdY0Pg@mail.gmail.com> <8f9aaac8-f44d-4844-d376-9c37bd7a81e0@cysols.com> <1848f053-9a5e-2f52-09b4-ce0e1688b557@cysols.com> <CAPbjwkzgORotsvYPWF2fqC7icJFXi5z10D1UHDTtYp1wojxw0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAPbjwkw=zTUB+RL2MN7g2CeW07Xc6o39g6sf6ZpKap1+49ENiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>
Message-ID: <3bb4da95-ce97-385d-ae59-963d8c6f3db0@cysols.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 19:24:10 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPbjwkw=zTUB+RL2MN7g2CeW07Xc6o39g6sf6ZpKap1+49ENiw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mib-doctors/q0SwByXRzhCTgY1sjQIbLrpFYV8>
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-07
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:24:26 -0000

Dear Tsuno/Zhang,
      Thanks for the good work. The document readability is
vastly improved.
The following are the comments on
     draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-08.txt

Glenn

0. The MIBs
     L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB and
     L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB
    compile OK. There are level-5 warnings
     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB:64: [5] {type-unref} warning: current  
type `L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType' is not referenced in this module
     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB:90: [5] {type-unref} warning: current  
type `L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId' is not referenced in this module
     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB:90: [5] {type-without-format} warning:  
type `L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId' has no format specification
     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB:169: [5] {type-unref} warning: current  
type `L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer' is not referenced in this module
     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB:198: [5] {type-unref} warning: current  
type `L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType' is not referenced in this  
module

     These may be ignored.

1. The explanations for the size of the identifiers for each tunneling
    technology in TC L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId
    is nicely done. These are aligned with definitions in rfc6514.
    In
            noTunnelId         (0), -- No tunnel information
    is there a specific reason to name it 'noTunnelId' instead of
    'noTunnelInfo'.

2. The TCs
        L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType, and
        L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer
    Are probably not required. The value of the RowPointer [rfc2579]
    object is ' the name of the instance of the first
                accessible columnar object in the conceptual row'
    So the pointer will explicitly contain the name of the table.
    An auxilliary type object to indicate the table name is not
    necessary.
   [This is an oversight on my part. I should have noticed this earlier.]


Other Editorials:
P-2. Sec-1.
1.   para-1 makes tedious reading. Could this be improved?

2.       "Border Gateway Protocol/ MultiProtocol Label Switching (BGP/MPLS)"
      The usage of the '/' here is unclear.

3.       "and L3 VPNs.  Therefore, TCs and MOs defined"
      The context of the 'Therefore' is not clear.

4.       "The are two type"
      Probably s/The/There/ ?






On 2017/05/26 21:25, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote:
> Dear Glenn,
> 
> Thank you for your thorough review and waiting for the updated.
> 
> I posted a new revision taking into account your latest comments.
> In the new revision, all of your comments are addressed.
> I also revised the draft to improve the readability.
> 
> Please see some notes below.
> 
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-08.txt
> Htmlized(1):
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-08
> Htmlized(2):
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-08
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-08
> 
> 2017-05-02 14:44 GMT+02:00 Hiroshi Tsunoda <tsuno@m.ieice.org>:
>> 2017-05-01 12:32 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>:
>>> Dear Tsuno/Zhang
>>>       Thanks for waiting. The review of
>>>   draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-07 follows.
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>> C1. Abstract:
>>>      The draft now defines 2 MIB modules.  Please revise the abstract
>>>      and probably the title of the document too.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>>> C2. The MIBs (L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB, L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB) compile OK.
>>>      (Three {type-unref} warnings are there, may be ignored.)
> 
> I have confirmed that the latest version of MIB modules can also be
> compiled successfully.
> 
>>> C3. Page 4:
>>>        s/3.  Summary of MIB Module/
>>>          3.  Summary of MIB Modules/
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>>> C4. Page 6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer DESCRIPTION
>>>        s/"Denotes a pointer to the row pertaining to a table entry/
>>>         /"This textual convention represents a pointer to a row in
>>>          the table represented by the following object of type
>>>          L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType./
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>>> C5. Page 7: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer DESCRIPTION
>>>          The explanation in the last paragraph seems out of place.
>>>          It may be removed.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>>> C6  Page 7: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType DESCRIPTION
>>>          it is unclear when the value 'null(0)' will be used.
>>>          Is this allowed only when the corresponding object of type
>>>          L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer has a value that is a
>>>          zero-length string ? If yes, please make that clear.
> 
> 'null(0)' is the default value and indicates that the corresponding
> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer object is not assigned.
> In the new revision, this point is described clearly.
> 
>>> C7. Page 9: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable DESCRIPTION
>>>          s/created by a PE router/maintained by a PE router/
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>>> C8. Page 12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
>>>           Do you really want to keep this object in L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.
>>>           It will change every time a new "tunnel type" is added to
>>>           L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType. That will defeat the purpose
>>>           of separating L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB from L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB
>>>           It may be a good idea to define a textual convention like
>>>               L2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
>>>           in the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB and use that textual convention
>>>           in the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB
> 
> Thank you for your suggestion. I revised the definition according to
> your suggestion.
> 
>>> C9. Page 13: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId DESCRIPTION
>>> A.       s/Thus, the size of this object is 16 octets in IPv4/
>>>             Thus, the size of this object is 8 octets in IPv4/
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>>> B.       The last 2 paragraphs do not tie up well with the previous
>>>           paragraphs in the DESCRIPTION.
> 
> Those 2 paragraphs are removed in the new revision.
> 
>>> C.       In the last paragraph
>>>           "this object is a pair of source and group IP addresses"
>>>           is unlcear. Please clarify.
> 
> Fixed. In the new revision, this point is described as follows.
> 
> "the corresponding Tunnel Identifier is composed of
> the source IP address and the group IP address."
> 
>>> C10. Page 15: Security Considerations
>>>           I would think that any field that reveals information about
>>>           a Multicast VPN and/or its members is sensitive.
>>>           Does the l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId field reveal
>>>           information about the participating members? If yes, it must
>>>           be marked as sensitive.
> 
> I revised this point according to your suggestion.
> 
>>> C11. Editorial:
>>>
>>> A. This does not pertain to the MIBs as such,
>>>     but I am uncomfortable with the  several variations
>>>     of the phrase
>>>     "Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (VPN)
>>>      that support multicast"
>>>     that appears in the text. I do not have a solution
>>>     on hand but it would be perhaps be more readable to
>>>     define and use a simple name/notation the beast for
>>>     which the MIB is being designed (e.g. "L2L3VPNMCast").
>>>
>>> B. Same with the phrase
>>>      "Layer 2 (L2) and Layer 3 (L3) VPN (Virtual Private
>>>       Network)
>>>      it would be probably be easier on the reader if an
>>>      abbreviation like L2L3VPNs was used where ever
>>>      applicable.
> 
> Thank you for your comments.
> In the new reivsion the abbreviation "L2L3VPNMCast"
> is defined and used throughout the draft.
> 
>>> C12. P2:Para4: s/within MIB module specifications//;
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>>> C13. General:
>>> A.      The DESCRIPTION clauses could do would some more
>>>          packing. (Too much space at the end of lines)
>>> B.      Please check the articles a/an/the once again. Some
>>>          usages do not seem right to me.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> -- tsuno
>