Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:32:35 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: IP Forwarding Table MIB
	Author(s)	: M. Wasserman, B. Haberman
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt
	Pages		: 34
	Date		: 2003-8-29
	
This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
(MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet
community.  In particular, it describes managed objects related to
the forwarding of Internet Protocol (IP) packets, in an IP version
independent manner.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:06:22 -0700 (PDT)

Greetings,

I have reviewed draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt, and I believe
that the document is now ready to proceed to IETF last call.  In
particular, I have verified that all requested changes have been
made (both the ones discussed in the presentation slides for the
Vienna IETF and the ones recommended in previous reviews), and I
have gone back through the MIB review checklist (Appendix A of
<draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt>) to make sure that no
new problems have been introduced.  Here are the checklist results:

1.) I-D Boilerplate -- OK

2.) Abstract -- OK

3.) MIB Boilerplate -- OK

4.) IPR Notices -- OK

5.) References -- OK

6.) Security Considerations Section -- excellent, statements
of vulnerabilities are well though out.

7.) IANA Considerations Section -- OK (none present and
none required).

8.) Copyrights -- OK

9.) Other issues (i.e., stuff in http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html
other than MIB compilation issues) -- OK

10.) Technical content -- the MIB design appears to be sound, and
the MIB compilation results from smilint and smidiff appear to be
satisfactory.  The results from smilint are as follows:

This command (smilint 0.4.2-pre1, as of Tue Aug 05 15:58:53 2003)
has been processed to get the following results:
smilint -m -s -l 6 rfc2096-update-05.mi2

rfc2096-update-05.mi2:1060: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
number `is-is' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:1061: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
number `es-is' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:203: [5] {index-element-no-size} warning:
index element `inetCidrRoutePolicy' of row `inetCidrRouteEntry'
should but cannot have a size restriction
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:115: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning:
index of row `inetCidrRouteEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 527
subidentifier(s)
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:517: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning:
index element `ipCidrRouteDest' of row `ipCidrRouteEntry' should be
not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:517: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning:
index element `ipCidrRouteMask' of row `ipCidrRouteEntry' should be
not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:517: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning:
index element `ipCidrRouteTos' of row `ipCidrRouteEntry' should be
not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:517: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning:
index element `ipCidrRouteNextHop' of row `ipCidrRouteEntry' should
be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:875: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning:
index element `ipForwardDest' of row `ipForwardEntry' should be
not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:875: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning:
index element `ipForwardProto' of row `ipForwardEntry' should be
not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:875: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning:
index element `ipForwardPolicy' of row `ipForwardEntry' should be
not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:875: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning:
index element `ipForwardNextHop' of row `ipForwardEntry' should be
not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB

Most of these diagnostics are from the deprecated parts of the MIB
module and can be safely ignored.  The ones that pertain to the new
parts of the MIB modue are those for lines 115 and 203.  The former
warns that it is theoretically possible for the OIDs of column
instances in inetCidrRouteEntry to exceed the 128 sub-identifier
limit imposed by the SMI and the SNMP by as many as 527
subidentifiers.  This is dealt with by the warning to implementors
in the inetCidrRouteEntry DESCRIPTION clause that the aggregate size
of the index components inetCidrRouteDest, inetCidrRoutePolicy, and
inetCidrRouteNextHop must not exceed 111 components.  The diagnostic
for line 203 is just a warning that the object identifier-valued
index column inetCidrRoutePolicy does not have a SIZE constraint.
Since the SMI does not allow such constraints, this warning can and
should be ignored.  In other words, there are no problems revealed
by the smilint report.

The smidiff report, excluding diagnostics that are merely
informational, is as follows:

rfc2096-update-05.mi2:953 [3] {to-implicit} implicit type for
`ipForwardPolicy' replaces type `Integer32'
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:953 [3] {range-added} range `(0..2147483647)'
added to type used in `ipForwardPolicy'
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:594 [3] {to-implicit} implicit type for
`ipCidrRouteTos' replaces type `Integer32'
rfc2096-update-05.mi2:594 [3] {range-added} range `(0..2147483647)'
added to type used in `ipCidrRouteTos'

The objects in question are index objects that were originally not
explicitly constrained to have non-negative values;  however, this
constraint is implicit, since index objects cannot be negative.
Since these changes do not change the semantics they are considered
to be editorial (see <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt>
section 4.9).  In other words, there is no problem.

This concludes the review of draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt.

Regards,

Mike Heard

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------