[mpls] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib-05
"Joan Cucchiara" <jcucchiara@mindspring.com> Sat, 13 April 2013 00:35 UTC
Return-Path: <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>
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 11C0221F8DC1; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sku+wzwDNMpC; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.63]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5EF321F8DA0; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=a5ufZyfbo2TVhHyPK2CKXehHjrvGzLWIzmyOz3QR38qG+nouizd9UVUvUT0VRyIY; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [24.41.69.138] (helo=JoanPC) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>) id 1UQoQk-0001YO-S4; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:34:58 -0400
Message-ID: <010401ce37e7$15b17ed0$6f01a8c0@JoanPC>
From: Joan Cucchiara <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org, "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, Venkatesan Mahalingam <venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com>, Kannan Sampath <kannankvs@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:34:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-ELNK-Trace: 4d68bbe9cb71969ea344cf2d1a8e60840a9da525759e2654b4bb481d29095864ce7e922808684282a7ce0e8f8d31aa3f350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 24.41.69.138
Subject: [mpls] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib-05
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:35:01 -0000
Sam, I am sorry for such a long delay....here is the MIB Dr. Review. Lots of progress on the draft! Please see the comments below. Thanks, -Joan smicng OUTPUT -------------- MPLS-LSR-EXT-STD-MIB ====================== W: f(MPLS-LSR-EXT-STD-MIB.my), (216,18) For "mplsXCExtTunnelPointer", syntax is identical W: f(MPLS-LSR-EXT-STD-MIB.my), (215,18) MIN-ACCESS value identical to access specified for "mplsXCExtTunnelPointer" W: f(MPLS-LSR-EXT-STD-MIB.my), (223,18) For "mplsXCExtOppositeDirXCPtr", syntax is identical *) The DESCRIPTION clauses related to these objects should be updated to include the information in this conformance section. MPLS-TE-EXT-STD-MIB ===================== E: f(MPLS-TE-EXT-STD-MIB.my), (284,17) Index item "mplsTunnelExtNodeIpMapNodeId" must be defined with syntax that includes a range I see the following in MPLS-TC-EXT-STD-MIB MplsNodeId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION .... SYNTAX Unsigned32 -- the default range: (0..4294967295) my suggestion is to include the range as part of the SYNTAX in the TC. smilint ----------- MIBs compile cleanly. GENERAL COMMENTS ---------------- *) The terms augments/sparse augments/extensions are all used to describe relationships with tables in this document and tables in rfc3812 and rfc3813. For example, a table in this document says "sparse augments" but then has a value of noSuchInstance returned if the counter is not applicable for TP. Another part of the document says that a table in this document augments a table from elsewhere, but that does not seem to be the case when looking at the MIB module. The relationships beween tables in this document and the tables in rfc3812 and rfc3813 need to be specified clearly. I would ask that the authors please check these relationships between the tables. This may be (simply?) using the term 'sparse augments' consistently. *) Appendix D of rfc4181 (MIB guidelines) suggests: xxxMIB | +-- xxxNotifications(0) +-- xxxObjects(1) +-- xxxConformance(2) | +-- xxxCompliances(1) +-- xxxGroups(2) The MIB Modules in this doc: \-2 Conformance \-v-1 Groups \-2 Compliances So Groups and Compliances are not in the suggested order. Specific Comments ===================== *) Introduction "This MIB module should be used...." Which MIB module are you referring to? (Do you mean "These MIB modules"??) *) Same Section (Intro) "...for MPLS based traffic engineering configuration and management." I don't understand completely, but seems like MPLS TP is probably what is meant. *) 4. Motivations s/used in non-IP environment./used in non-IP environments. awkward sentence: This MIB also defines three other MIB modules within this document. Maybe: This document defines 4 MIB modules: (and then list all 4) 5. Feature List Could you refer to the MIB module by name? So, instead of "MPLS transport profile MIB module" use the MPLS-TE-EXT-STD-MIB and so forth. 6. Brief description of MIB Objects This section focuses on MPLS-TE-EXT-STD-MIB, so maybe rename the section or also include the other MIB modules in this document. 6.5 mplsTunnelExtReversePerfTable "This table augments the mplsTunnelTable..." If it augments, then why is AUGMENTS not used in the MPLS-TE-EXT-STD-MIB? I think this relationship is a sparce augments, not an actual augments? Please explain. MPLS-TC-EXT-MIB ================== *) Why is the CC ID not represented in this MIB Module? Basically, the question has to do with the following from draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers, specifically: "Together, the CC and the ICC form the ICC_Operator_ID as: CC::ICC The ICC_Operator_ID is used as a replacement for the Global_ID as specified in [RFC6370], i.e. its purpose is to provide a globally unique context for other MPLS-TP identifiers." ICC_Operator_ID appears to be the counterpart to GLOBAL_ID. In other words, these both uniquely identify an operator. Whereas, ICC by itself does not. MPLS-ID-STD-MIB ================= *)What is the relationship between mplsIdGlobalId and mplsIdNodeId? Specifically, if mplsIdGlobalId has been set, can mplsIdNodeId be set to a different value? *) NIT: Could the order reflect the same order as in MPLS-TC-EXT-STD-MIB? The reason is that GLobal_ID and NODE_ID are related so think would be logical to have them near each other. *) Also, I'm not really sure why you want a MIB module with only 3 scalars in it? As far as I can see these scalars are only used in the MPLS-TE-EXT-STD-MIB, so why separate them? *) Error: FullCompliance and ReadOnlyCompliance is EXACTLY the same. MPLS-LSR-EXT-STD-MIB ===================== Compliance: OBJECT mplsXCExtTunnelPointer SYNTAX RowPointer MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "The only valid value for Tunnel Pointer is mplsTunnelTable entry." *) This object is read-only, so no need for a read-only compliance since object is already read-only. *) The above DESCRIPTION needs to be included in the object's DESCRIPTION. OBJECT mplsXCExtOppositeDirXCPtr SYNTAX RowPointer MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "The only valid value for XC Pointer is mplsXCTable entry." ::= { mplsLsrExtCompliances 2 } *) The above DESCRIPTION needs to be included in the object's DESCRIPTION. *) There is nothing here that specifies the readOnly compliance. Would expect something like: OBJECT nameOfObject MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." MPLS-TE-EXT-STD-MIB =================== *) DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the Global Operator Identifier. This object value should be zero when mplsTunnelExtNodeConfigIccId is configured with non-null value." DESCRIPTION should state that the object has no meaning when mplsTunnelExtNodeConfigIccId is valid. Same comment for mplsTunnelExtNodeConfigId. In other words, maybe an additional object is needed to indicate Global or ICC? What if a 3rd TP id is created, then what happens? Better to be explicite I think, than to try and overload these objects with values that they shouldn't have. mplsTunnelExtNodeConfigNodeId OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX MplsNodeId MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the Node_ID within the operator. *) Sentence is awkward. mplsTunnelExtNodeConfigIccId Similar comment to the above. Additionally, how can an OCTET STRING of size (1..6) have a zero value? *) mplsTunnelExtNodeConfigStorageType Not sure I see the advantage of having this as it is already in the MplsTunnelTable. Why have 2 StorageType objects for the same row? *) mplsTunnelExtIngressLSRLocalIdValid and mplsTunnelExtEgressLSRLocalIdValid Please fix the DESCRIPTION and REFERENCE. (Looks like the DESCRIPTION clause has been continued after the REF clause.) *) mplsTunnelExtReversePerfTable I would like to understand why noSuchInstance would be needed. This table is a sparse augments, so either the entry would be there or it wouldn't, right? *) Probably could remove the following (comment applies to other MIB Modules also.) -- Notifications mplsTeExtNotifications OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mplsTeExtStdMIB 0 } -- Notifications. -- Notification objects need to be added here. -- End of notifications. *) Compliance Section ReadOnly compliance is the same as the Full Compliance. In other words, readonly compliance does not really exist. Please fix this. 14. Security Considerations ============================ Should specify which objects would jeopardize security. 15. IANA Considerations ======================== Where is it? This section needs to be done. -- the end --
- [mpls] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mi… Joan Cucchiara
- Re: [mpls] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-t… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [mpls] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-t… Joan Cucchiara
- Re: [mpls] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-t… venkatesan mahalingam