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

"Ryoo, Jeong-dong " <ryoo@etri.re.kr> Mon, 04 July 2016 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ryoo@etri.re.kr>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD81A12D0B6; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.326
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iEt_ueV4-QKX; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpeg.etri.re.kr (smtpeg1.etri.re.kr [129.254.27.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08FD312D09C; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SMTP3.etri.info (129.254.28.73) by SMTPEG1.etri.info (129.254.27.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:31:48 +0900
Received: from SMTP2.etri.info ([169.254.2.162]) by SMTP3.etri.info ([10.2.6.32]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:31:48 +0900
From: "Ryoo, Jeong-dong " <ryoo@etri.re.kr>
To: Joan Cucchiara <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>, 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>
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: <5B4A6CBE3924BB41A3BEE462A8E0B75A291EC689@SMTP2.etri.info>
References: <015001d1d22e$d8a8ba40$89fa2ec0$@mindspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <015001d1d22e$d8a8ba40$89fa2ec0$@mindspring.com>
Accept-Language: ko-KR, en-US
Content-Language: ko-KR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-new-displayname: UnlvbywgSmVvbmctZG9uZyA=
x-originating-ip: [129.254.28.42]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5B4A6CBE3924BB41A3BEE462A8E0B75A291EC689SMTP2etriinfo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/7RUUMPcVKJl6qwzSPUp4Yi1zN6I>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "mib-doctors@ietf.org" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-08.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 01:31:56 -0000

Joan,


Thank you for the comments.

We will work on resolving the issues.


Best regards,


Jeong-dong









________________________________
보낸 사람 : "Joan Cucchiara" <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>
보낸 날짜 : 2016-06-30 02:51:55 ( +09:00 )
받는 사람 : 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>
참조 : mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>rg>, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib@ietf.org <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib@ietf.org>rg>, mpls-chairs@ietf.org <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, mib-doctors@ietf.org <mib-doctors@ietf.org>rg>, Joan Cucchiara <jcucchiara.ietf@gmail.com>om>, jcucchiara@mindspring.com <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>
제목 : Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-08.txt



Authors,





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



operator).





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".







Thanks,



-Joan





Specific Comments:



==================



Section 1. Introduction





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



plural





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



the MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB.





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



DESCRIPTION



"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



allowed.)









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



clause.



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?







Notifications





* mplsLpsEventFopTimOut Notification





Please rename this to mplsLpsEventFopTimeout





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



Module.





---