[rbridge] [MIB-DOCTORS] Volunteer needed to reviewdraft-ietf-trill-rbridge-mib-03

Mon Sep 5 08:47:19 PDT 2011

Hi Anil,

See in line. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anil Rijhsinghani [mailto:anil at charter.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:55 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: mib-doctors at ietf.org; rbridge at postel.org; Ralph Droms
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] [MIB-DOCTORS] Volunteer needed to reviewdraft-
> ietf-trill-rbridge-mib-03
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> I'm working through all your syntactical suggestions, and will wait to
> hear from you about any additional comments from MIB doctors.
> 
[[DR]] I suggest that you do not wait for further comments and published
a revised version when you feel that you are ready, addressing the
comments received until now. 

> Regarding your first comment, please note that references to IEEE
802.1
> MIB modules have been added to the "Relationships" section, following
> your earlier round of comments. We cannot eliminate references to the
> IETF MIB modules, given that the vast majority of vendors have
> implemented those.
> 
[[DR]] Understood. However, somebody who starts writing an
implementation today will probably look to the more recent MIB modules
and these are the one published by the IEEE 802.1 WG. I would at least
provide also the name of the MIB groups in the IEEE 802.1 MIB modules,
include references and even provide a paragraph that says that Bridge
MIB work has been transferred to the IEEE 802.1 WG as per [RFC4663].

> Regards,
> Anil
> 
> On Aug 18, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > We did not receive any volunteering offers. The list is still open
> and
> > the MIB doctors are invited to step ahead.
> >
> > Bert and me did however a quick review of the I-D. Here are our
> > findings. Please treat them as review comments, but keep in mind
that
> > the list is not final and more things may accumulate.
> >
> > I would also note that I reviewed a previous version of the MIB
> module
> > and document and made a number of comments. Not all were taken into
> > consideration.
> >
> > 1. The relationship with other MIB module sections refer to the IETF
> > RFCs. However, since 2006 the development of the Bridge MIB modules
> and
> > their successors were transferred to IEEE 802.1. I suggest to define
> the
> > relationship sections in relation to the IEEE MIB modules
> >
> > 2. There are several tables with read-create objects but no
rowStatus
> > object - rbridgeBaseNicknameTable, rbridgeBasePortTable,
> > rbridgeVlanPortTable, etc.
> >
> > 3. There are several writeable objects and tables with writeable
> objects
> > but no rowStorageType or any indication about persistency
> >
> > 4. In several places SYNTAX of Integer32 is used for range positive
> > integers. RFC 4181, section 4.6.1.1 says:
> >
> > - If the value range is between 0..4294967295 (inclusive), and
values
> >     greater than 2147483647 are possible, and the value of the
> >     information being modelled does not increase above the maximum
> >     value nor decrease below the minimum value, then:
> >
> >     - Unsigned32 is RECOMMENDED;
> >     - Gauge32 is acceptable;
> >     - INTEGER and Integer32 MUST NOT be used.
> >
> > 5. Use of Inter32 (0-65535) for port numbers instead of using
> > InetPortNumber from RFC4001
> >
> > 6. SMICng strict checking gives:
> >
> > W: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (46,17) The first revision should match the
> > last update for MODULE-IDENTITY rbridgeMIB
> > W: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (299,4) Sequence "RBridgeBasePortEntry" and
> Row
> > "rbridgeBasePortEntry" should have related names
> > E: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (299,4) Row "rbridgeBasePortEntry" may not
> have
> > columns with MAX-ACCESS of read-write if any column is read-create
> > E: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (608,18) Index item "dot1qFdbId" must be
> > defined with syntax that includes a range
> > W: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (810,20) Item "rbridgeMultiFibPorts" should
> > have SIZE specified
> > E: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (838,18) Index item "dot1qVlanIndex" must
be
> > defined with syntax that includes a range
> > E: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (912,18) Index item "dot1qVlanIndex" must
be
> > defined with syntax that includes a range
> > E: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (1113,18) Index item "dot1qVlanIndex" must
> be
> > defined with syntax that includes a range
> > E: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (1272,17) Index item "dot1qVlanIndex" must
> be
> > defined with syntax that includes a range
> > W: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (1265,4) Row "rbridgeSnoopingAddrEntry" has
> > indexing that may create variables with more than 128 sub-ids
> > W: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (1310,20) Item "rbridgeSnoopingAddrPorts"
> > should have SIZE specified
> > W: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (838,18) Row "rbridgeVlanEntry" does not
> have a
> > consistent indexing scheme - index items must be in same order as
> used
> > in INDEX cl ause for "base row" dot1qVlanCurrentEntry
> > W: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (912,18) Row "rbridgeVlanPortEntry" does
not
> > have a consistent indexing scheme - cannot specify an index item
from
> > additional "bas e row" dot1qVlanCurrentEntry, since can have only
one
> > "base row" which is rbridgeBasePortEntry
> > W: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (1113,18) Row "rbridgeEsadiEntry" does not
> have
> > a consistent indexing scheme - index items must be in same order as
> used
> > in INDEX clause for "base row" dot1qVlanCurrentEntry
> > W: f(trill-rbridge.mi2), (1272,17) Row "rbridgeSnoopingAddrEntry"
> does
> > not have a consistent indexing scheme - index items must be in same
> > order as used in  INDEX clause for "base row" dot1qVlanCurrentEntry
> >
> > 7. Objects like rbridgeBaseUniMultipathEnable or
> > rbridgeBaseMultiMultipathEnable could use the TruthValue TC as
> SYNTAX.
> >
> > 8. UNITS clauses would be useful for counter objects.
> >
> > 9. There is no indication about the behavior of tables that contain
> > counters wrt. counters discontinuity or any discontinuity indicator
> > objects defined. (see section 4.6.1.2 in RFC 4181 for this)
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: mib-doctors-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mib-doctors-
> >> bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:27 PM
> >> To: mib-doctors at ietf.org
> >> Cc: Ralph Droms
> >> Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] Volunteer needed to reviewdraft-ietf-trill-
> >> rbridge-mib-03
> >>
> >> MIB-Doctors,
> >>
> >> We need a volunteer to review
> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-mib-03.txt. The
> >> document
> >> is co-authored by Anil Rijhsinghani (author of the original Bridge
> > MIB)
> >> and looks in pretty good shape.
> >>
> >> Thanks and Regards,
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> >> MIB-DOCTORS at ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rbridge mailing list
> > rbridge at postel.org
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge