Return-Path: X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96871B2D2A; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:33:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 5flqbdF3jYnm; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 406961B2CED; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by laeb10 with SMTP id b10so72683873lae.1; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:33:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1f5j8hwg6oB6pU0ba6s7r6HsX0NTW451918T/cUWI7I=; b=qP796F/bIJ9SRdI0PRIDmCYsg+DiVjYI8HnCxFYs8R/9EeqTro5gQqaPVRb0o4qz3Q tXsKZJ8XWPAau/iiyZtq7D4m3RTVnlGTXfzWXDRj2k5C4pIc9LMUeDYSTZFPBpv3CIgm 1tyKGIkmRo1gRcbCP0kGPoy/WnGMfZXI/Ls7UP9PWil3Uc6wK72DVOFbuuI+Z/dV/9Lt zfKoLYZ7koBOYbMilvqJDHfm15K6G/vZOQkfyVi3NTohNxV3JYw9ahv6dFvXYB7mchHb O0oNUEQHkY6Uax91RkDZCAqtOYfHlERp0jhcbxn1ylZlbhlZ7sdWsUsuriMhW1byEvus z9Sg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.150.3 with SMTP id ue3mr23144683lbb.51.1441726425226; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.22.94 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:33:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150903065902.11053.69251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:33:45 -0700 Message-ID: From: Venkatesan Mahalingam To: Benoit Claise Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3437ea70633e051f3e17a9 Archived-At: Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" , Joan Cucchiara , mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib.shepherd@ietf.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 15:33:49 -0000 --047d7b3437ea70633e051f3e17a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear Benoit, I've addressed all your comments and published the new version 10, please take look. -Venkat. On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Venkatesan Mahalingam < venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 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. >> >> >> > --047d7b3437ea70633e051f3e17a9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Benoit,

I've addressed all you= r comments and published the new version 10, please take look.
-Venkat.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Venkatesan Mahalingam <venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com> wrote:
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= =C2=A0
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 protec=
tion opens devices to attack.
Regd, Joan'= s comments, I dont see any reported warnings on version 09,

<= /div>
Joan: If you could quickly verify the compilation on version 09 a= nd confirm, if would be of great help as IESG approval is pending for this = draft.=C2=A0

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

While processing your request the followi= ng errors and/or warnings have been found:

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

-Venka= t.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Benoit Claise <bclais= e@cisco.com> 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/s= tatement/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/draf= t-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= =3Ddiff&version=3D7&old_version=3D6


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.




--047d7b3437ea70633e051f3e17a9--