VG Rptr MIB review comments

[John Flick <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I have now received comments back from the NM Area review of the
VG rptr MIB draft.  (Actually, I guess it isn't an NM Area review
anymore.  More like the MIB Review Board of the O&M Area.)  I have
summarized the reviewer's comments below:

  1. "Abstract" section missing

  2. Add a short section describing the model of a managed .12
     repeater system.

  3. Use of the term "package" in Section 3.4 is confusing (since it
     is used differently from the way GDMO uses it) and unnecessary.

  4. Regarding relationship to the system group, add clarification
     that there is only one instance of system group regardless of
     the number of repeaters in the managed system.  Possibly add
     a relationship to Entity MIB section.

  5. Add a short explanation for why some of the IEEE attributes
     have no corresponding MIB objects.

  6. In vgRptrInfoTable, the term "non-trivial" repeater is
     undefined.

  7. Some writable objects specify "The value of this object should
     be preserved across repeater resets and power failures", but
     others don't say that when they probably should.

  8. Representing Counter64's as two Counter32's that are defined
     as high-order and low-order halves of a 64-bit counter is not
     technically legal.  The high order Counter32 should really
     be defined to count rollovers of the low order counter.

  9. Define compliances to allow a V1-only implementation to leave
     out the Counter64 objects.

In addition, I noticed the following:

 10. Compliance statement should allow vgRptrInfoDesiredFramingType
     to have a MIN-ACCESS of read-only, since it is perfectly
     legal to have a .12 repeater that supports only one frame type.

 11. The 802.3 Repeater MIB compliance section was changed to make
     the monitor group and address tracking group mandatory rather
     than optional.  I forgot to track that change in our draft.

For the most part, the editor "understands the edits", but since
some of the issues involve adding new text (especially issues
2, 4, and 5), and revising names an descriptions of objects
(especially issue 8) I will definitely be needing feedback from
the WG.  We also need to check for consensus on issue 11.

I will send out a list of edits to address these comments tomorrow,
and will put together a "pre-draft" for review by this weekend.  I
would like to submit the updated draft to the I-D editor on Friday,
May 16.  Since that should be the final draft, ready to submit to
the IESG, please plan on setting aside some time next week to review
the proposed changes.

Thanks,
John

P.S. to Jeff: I also need to update your address, etc. in the
CONTACT-INFO clause of the MODULE-IDENTITY, since I am assuming
the cisco address is no longer valid.