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

[Joan Cucchiara <[e-mail]>]

Jeong-dong,

Thank you for the quick turn-around and also for the thoroughness of
addressing this last round of comments.   I believe the MIB review is
complete.

Thanks again for all your time and effort during this process,
-Joan


On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:29 AM, 류정동 <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Joan,
>
> Thank you so much for your review and comments.
> All your comments had been incorporated into the revision posted a few
> minutes ago as follows.
>
> Name:           draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib
> Revision:       10
> Title:          MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection MIB
> Document date:  2016-10-12
> Group:          mpls
> Pages:          45
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-
> linear-protection-mib-10.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-
> protection-mib-10
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-tp-
> linear-protection-mib-10
>
> Would you please let us know if you have any further comments on this
> document at your earliest convenience?
>
> Best reagrds,
>
> Jeong-dong
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> 보낸 사람: Joan Cucchiara [[e-mail]]
> 보낸 날짜: 2016년 10월 8일 토요일 오전 9:53
> 받는 사람: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 참조: 류정동; Benoit Claise
> 제목: MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-tp-linear-mib-09
>
> 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/
>
> ---
>
>
>