Re: [mpls] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Venkatesan Mahalingam <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit and Joan,

We will publish the next version with the below changes in the security
section, hope this is fine.

OLD

Section-8

   There are number of management objects defined in this MIB module
   with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-create. Such objects may be
   considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
   The support for SET operations in a non-secure environment
   *without proper protection can have negative effect on network
   operations.*

NEW

Section-8

There are number of management objects defined in this MIB module
   with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-create. Such objects may be
   considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
   The support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without
proper protection opens devices to attack.

  Regd, Joan's comments, I dont see any reported warnings on version 09,

Joan: If you could quickly verify the compilation on version 09 and
confirm, if would be of great help as IESG approval is pending for this
draft.

timeout 10 smilint -s -e -l 6 mibs/MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB 2>report.txt

While processing your request the following errors and/or warnings have
been found:

mibs/MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB:83: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object
identifier element `xxx' name only allowed as first element
mibs/MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB:23: [2] {module-identity-registration}
illegal module identity registration


-Venkat.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-09: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Based on the feedback of the security AD, the security guidelines for the
> IETF MIB modules
> (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security) have been
> changed 9 months ago.
> The exact change at
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security?action=diff&version=7&old_version=6
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The MIB doctor latest review from Joan Cucchiara:
>
> My comments (which I made to the authors also about Feb 28, 2015) was
> about these warnings:
> Warning with SMICNG compiler:
>
> W: f(MPLS-TP-OAM-MIB.my), (883,22) MIN-ACCESS value identical to access
> specified for "mplsOamIdMegOperStatus"
> W: f(MPLS-TP-OAM-MIB.my), (888,22) MIN-ACCESS value identical to access
> specified for "mplsOamIdMegSubOperStatus"
>
> Yes, these are just warnings, but they are easily fixable and I believe
> the authors agreed to fix these warnings during the AD review process
> (that would be you
>
> Other than these warnings, the MIB is fine with me to go forward.
>
>
>