Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-05.txt [was: RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for May 8, 2008 Telechat]

Bert,

Using libsmi the MIB module compiles cleanly. 

Is this again a case where smicng is more strict?  This may be rather a
warning case at worst and not an error case. 

As per RFC4181: 

   -   Unsigned32 with a range that excludes zero is RECOMMENDED for
       most index objects.  It is acceptable to include zero in the
       range when it is semantically significant or when it is used as
       the index value for a unique row with special properties.  Such
       usage SHOULD be clearly documented in the DESCRIPTION clause.

Assuming zero is a valid error and that a better explanation is provided
about the 'special case' in the DESCRIPTION I do not see a problem. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bert Wijnen - IETF [mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net] 
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 12:56 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); David Ward; 
> bharat_joshi@infosys.com; rainab@gmail.com
> Cc: MIB Doctors; pim@ietf.org
> Subject: draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-05.txt [was: RE: 
> [MIB-DOCTORS] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for May 
> 8,2008 Telechat]
> 
> W.r.t.
>  
> >   o draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-05.txt
> >     PIM Bootstrap Router MIB (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 11 
> >     Token: David Ward
> 
> I get: 
> 
>   C:\bw\smicng\work>smicng bsr.inc
>   E: f(bsr.mi2), (402,21) Index item "pimBsrCandidateBSRZoneIndex" 
>      must be defined with syntax that includes a range
>   E: f(bsr.mi2), (541,21) Index item "pimBsrElectedBSRZoneIndex"
>      must be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>   *** 2 errors and 0 warnings in parsing
> 
> The InetZoneIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION from RFC4001 is the 
> SYNTAX for those 2 objects. And that TC does not include a range.
> 
> The DESCRIPTION clause of the TC explains that value zero is 
> a special value. It iss unclear to me if that special value 
> of zero is a valid/acceptable value for the INDEX objects. If 
> not, then it might be good to use
> 
>        SYNTAX     InetZoneIndex (1..4294967295)
> 
> If it is a valid value, then I can live with the Error msg.
> The error msg could still be suppressed by doing:
> 
>        SYNTAX     InetZoneIndex (0..4294967295)
> 
> And if you do so, then you explicitly indicate that zero is 
> indeed a valid value for the INDEX object.
> 
> A NIT on the securitry Considerations:
> 
>    Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec),
> 
> s/IPSec/IPsec/
> 
> I would not be urprised if Russ makes that comment too.
> 
> Bert
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim