Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-mib-12

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 04:26:45 -0700

Reviewer: Qin Wu
Review result: Ready

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF
drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD
reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments. This draft defines MIB
for MAP-E for use with SNMP. It is well written and I have no concern on
operational aspects. Here are a few editorial comments as follows: 1. Please
remove unused reference RFC7598. 2. Section 4.1, the 1st paragraph, last
sentence Can you list which parts of the IF-MIB in more details here the MAP-E
depends on? 3. Section 4.1.1 two categories on mapping rules In MIB module
definition, it looks the mapping rule is divided into three categories, i.e.,
BMR, FMR and BMRandFMR,which is not consistent with two categories
classification defined in section 4.1.1, I am wondering whether we also have
fmrandbmr, i.e., Forwarding Mapping Rule can also be basic Mapping Rule, in
other words, is fmrandbmr same as bmrandfmr? Is fmrandbmr a set that belong to
both fmr and bmr? Try to understand this, would it be great to clarify this in
section 4.1.1. 4.Section 4.1.2 two kind of invalid packets In MIB module
definition, two MapSecurityCheckEntries are defined, one is
mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4, the other is mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4. I am
wondering whether    these two entries are corresponding to two kind of invalid
packets described in section 4.1.2. also I am not sure I understand payload
source IPv4 address and port, are these payload source and port are referred to
received packets’ source IPv4 address port mentioned in section 4.1.2.
5.Section 6 does this document request IANA to assign new OID under mib-2 or
just use existing OID under mib-2?

---

From: "Yu Fu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 16:44:51 +0800

Hi, Qin Wu

Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions.

Please see my reply inline

>I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
>ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
>These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
>aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call
>may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors
>and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
>comments. This draft defines MIB for MAP-E for use with SNMP. It is well
>written and I have no concern on operational aspects. Here are a few
>editorial comments as follows: 1. Please remove unused reference
>RFC7598. 
[fuyu] The RFC7598 is referenced by the definition of RuleType

>2. Section 4.1, the 1st paragraph, last sentence Can you list
>which parts of the IF-MIB in more details here the MAP-E depends on? 
[fuyu] Yes, I will update it in more detail as : "MAP-E MIB is configurable 
on a per-interface basis, so it depends on several parts of the IF-MIB
by ifEntry [RFC2863]".

>3.Section 4.1.1 two categories on mapping rules In MIB module definition, it
>looks the mapping rule is divided into three categories, i.e., BMR, FMR and
>BMRandFMR,which is not consistent with two categories classification
>defined in section 4.1.1, I am wondering whether we also have fmrandbmr,
>i.e., Forwarding Mapping Rule can also be basic Mapping Rule, in other
>words, is fmrandbmr same as bmrandfmr? Is fmrandbmr a set that belong
>to both fmr and bmr? Try to understand this, would it be great to clarify
>this in section 4.1.1. 
[fuyu] In the section 5 of RFC7597, it defines two types of mapping rules: 
Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) and Forwarding Mapping Rule (FMR). So we should accord with
this definition in RFC7597.
And in the section 4.1 of RFC7598, it defines F-flag to specify whether the rule is to be used
for forwarding (FMR).  If set, this rule is used as an FMR; if not set, this rule is a 
BMR only and MUST NOT be used for forwarding. And a BMR can also be used as
an FMR for forwarding if the F-flag is set.
So in the RuleType definition, it defines bmrAndfmr to specify this scenario.
I will update a description as above in section 4.1.1.
 
>4.Section 4.1.2 two kind of invalid packets In MIB
>module definition, two MapSecurityCheckEntries are defined, one is
>source IPv4 address and port, are these payload source and port are
>referred to received packets’ source IPv4 address port mentioned in
>section 4.1.2.
[fuyu] Yes, two kind of invalid packets In MIB module definition is mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4
and mapSecurityCheckInvalidv6, which are corresponding to two kind
of invalid packets described in section 4.1.2. I will update a clarify in the MIB definition.

>5.Section 6 does this document request IANA to assign new OID under
>mib-2 or just use existing OID under mib-2?

[fuyu] It request IANA to assign a new OID.

Thanks again for your review

Cheers
Yu