Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-08.txt

"Ryoo, Jeong-dong " <> Mon, 04 July 2016 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD81A12D0B6; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.326
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iEt_ueV4-QKX; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08FD312D09C; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:31:48 +0900
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:31:48 +0900
From: "Ryoo, Jeong-dong " <>
To: Joan Cucchiara <>, 'Loa Andersson' <>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-08.txt
Thread-Index: AdHSFjWpcpjL+xraTQufstl1/Pb5kgDfVTdS
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 01:31:48 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <015001d1d22e$d8a8ba40$89fa2ec0$>
In-Reply-To: <015001d1d22e$d8a8ba40$89fa2ec0$>
Accept-Language: ko-KR, en-US
Content-Language: ko-KR
x-new-displayname: UnlvbywgSmVvbmctZG9uZyA=
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5B4A6CBE3924BB41A3BEE462A8E0B75A291EC689SMTP2etriinfo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 01:31:56 -0000


Thank you for the comments.

We will work on resolving the issues.

Best regards,


보낸 사람 : "Joan Cucchiara" <>
보낸 날짜 : 2016-06-30 02:51:55 ( +09:00 )
받는 사람 : 'Loa Andersson' <>
참조 : <>rg>, <>rg>, <>rg>, <>rg>, Joan Cucchiara <>om>, <>
제목 : Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-08.txt


Thank you for addressing the review comments quickly and I apologize for

being late with the follow-on review. The MIB compiles cleanly with

smingPRO and smilint.

In the previous review the relationship between some tables in the

MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB and in this draft were not clear. While changes have

been made, more clarification is needed. Please keep in mind that

developers need to understand the relationships between these tables and how

the rows in these tables are created (i.e., network management entity and/or


I have reviewed the changes made from 07 to this draft. I have deleted the

07 comments that are resolved in this new version. If there is still a

clarification that is needed, I added additional comments prefaced by "JEC".



Specific Comments:


Section 1. Introduction

"However, since the MIB module specified in this document are ..." <--


JEC: minor edit. In the above sentence, s/are/is/

Section 5.4 The Table Structure

* The mplsLpsConfigTable

As a reviewer, this is confusing because the relationship with these tables

is unclear and so it is very difficult to review the MIB Module. Please

clarify the relationship with these tables and to the mplsOamIdMeTable in


JEC: This section specifies "The protection domain is identified by

mplsLpsConfigDomainName." and the object's DESCRIPTION indicates that this

value is supposed to be unique, so my question is why does this need to be

unique, and if it really does need to be unique, then why isn't this an

INDEX? Please clarify.

mplsLpsConfigDomainName OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX SnmpAdminString (SIZE (0..32))

MAX-ACCESS read-create

STATUS current


"Textual name represents the MPLS-TP linear protection domain.

Each protection domain is identified by a unique protection

domain name. "

::= { mplsLpsConfigEntry 2 }

(This object should probably have a DEFVAL{""} since 0 length string is


Section 7. Example of Protection Switching Configuration

JEC: The example in this section needs to be reworked. Please use different

values for some of these indices. Too many of these indices are "1" and

that is not very helpful. If the indices are supposed to be the same

values that would be good to know with additional comments too.

MIB Module


* mplsLpsConfigDomainName -- Is there a DEFAULT value for this object?

The string size is 1..32 with no option of 0 length string, so wanted to

check about a default value? Under what circumstances can this value be

modified? Please give a REFERENCE.

JEC: Now that a 0 length string is allowed, there should probably be a

DEFVAL{ ""}; Additionally, why is it necessary to have each Domain Name be

unique? If it MUST be unique, then perhaps it should be an INDEX. Also,

it is unclear how rows in this table are supposed to be created. Could that

be included in the Table's description?

* mplsLpsConfigMode - Needs REFERENCE (and please try to be specific).

Under what circumstances can this be modified?

JEC: Still needs a REFERENCE. Need to add what sort of SNMP error code

will be returned when an attempt is made to change this value and RowStatus

== "active", e.g. inconsistentValue Error ?

JEC: * mplsLpsConfigSdBadSeconds -- see this 2 times in the DESCRIPTION


This object may be modified if the associated

mplsLpsConfigRowStatus object is equal to active(1).

This object may be modified if the associated

mplsLpsConfigRowStatus object is equal to active(1). "

JEC: * mplsLpsConfigSdBadSeconds and mplsLpsConfigSdGoodSeconds Did not

see such features as these in the REFERENCE sited. Could you please confirm

REFERENCE. Not clear on how these are used with the SdThreshold. Where

does the DEFVAL of 10 come from?

* mplsLpsConfigWaitToRestore

Why is this not in minutes? If someone configures this to be 30 seconds is

that valid? Doesn't seem so based on the DESCRIPTION. Please clarify.

JEC: The DESCRIPTION clause still mentions seconds. ("This object holds

the Wait To Restore timer value in seconds.") Units are in minutes and

the rest of DESCRIPTION clause is in minutes. Please be consistent.

JEC: * mplsLpsMeConfigDomainIndexValue, is this an INDEX? The name leads

me to believe it is, as does the DESCRIPTION, but have no idea how the

objects in this entry are configured. Please add a REFERENCE clause, or

clarify somehow. This is crucial to the success or failure of this MIB.

Is the network management entity (e.g SNMP Agent/subagent) suppose to create

these rows? Is an operator? Please add details on how entries are made in

this table. You say that it is a Sparse Augments relationship but even

still, very unclear on

how rows are created. If this is NOT an INDEX, then please remove the

term "Index" from the name of this object.

Have to ask If the intention is that one or more entries (i.e. rows in this

table) could be related to a single entry in mplsOamIdMeTable? If so, then

an index is needed.

*mplsLpsMeConfigState is a read-create.

JEC: DESCRIPTION says "operational state" but the name says "ConfigState"

and this is a read-create? Need to decide which this is and be consistent.

Do you need another object for the operational state which is a read-only?


* mplsLpsEventFopTimOut Notification

Please rename this to mplsLpsEventFopTimeout

JEC: Not done, please rename to be consistent with other objects in the MIB