[mpls] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-tp-linear-mib-09

[Joan Cucchiara <[e-mail]>]

Authors,

Thank you for addressing the comments so thoroughly, and especially for
clarifying the example in section 7.    Much appreciated.

The MIB compiles with smilint and smicngPRO.   Comments are below.

Thank you,
-Joan

Comments:
----------------

1) Section 6.1 Relationship to the MPLS OAM Maintenance Identifiers MIB
Module

   "The mplsLpsMeConfigTable entry is extended by the entry in the
   mplsOamIdMeTable defined in [RFC7697]."

The above statement is backwards....think the intention is to say something
like:
Entries in the mplsOamIdMeTable [RFC7697] are extended by entries in the
mplsLspMeConfigTable.

2) later in this same section, section 6.1

   "An entry of this table is related to a single entry in
mplsOamIdMeTable."

The above is confusing because you've already discuss the sparse augments
relationship.  Please remove
the above sentence.


MIB Module
------------
3)  mplsLpsConfigIndexNext  -   please rename to
mplsLpsConfigDomainIndexNext.
Since this scalar is only used for the mplsLpsConfigDomainIndex index's
values, the name should reflect that.
NOTE:  this name change should be propagated elsewhere in the draft.
Please do a search and replace.

4) mplsLpsConfigDomainIndex  (editorial)
  "Managers should..."

s/Managers/Operators/


5) mplsLpsConfigCommand
Why is there NO DEVAL?   Wouldn't "noCmd" be an appropriate DEFVAL?


6) mplsLpsConfigRowStatus DESCRIPTION clause

RowStatus objects reflect the status of the Row, not a determination of
whether or not values
are "appropriate".  Please remove the last sentence of this DESCRIPTION:

         "...An entry may not exist in the active state unless all
          objects in the entry have an appropriate value."


7)  mplsLpsConfigDomainIndex and mplsLpsMeConfigDomain

Since MIBs often get stripped out of RFCs, the relationship between the
mplsLpsConfigDomainIndex and
the mplsLpsMeConfigDomain needs to be included in the MIB Module itself.

Both DESCRIPTION clauses need to be updated to describe the relationship
between these objects.   Verbage such as "When the
value of mplsLpsConfigDomainIndex is the same as the value of
mplsLpsMeConfigDomain, that means..." and then explain what
this means.

8)  mplsLpsMeConfigDomain DESCRIPTION (editorial)
         "This object holds the value of protection domain index wherein
          this ME included in.

s/included in/is included/

---