Subject: RE: MIB doctor review of draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2496bis-02.txt

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:30:04 +0200

Mike, thanks for your very thorough review... I have some
additional nits/questions/suggestions:

.. Snip ..

> 5.) References -- the following things require attention:
> 
.. Snip ..

> (c) there are two places in the document that refer to RFC 1213,
> one in the DESCRIPTION clause of the deprecated object dsx3IfIndex
> and one in Appendix A, which describes the historical (RFC 1407)
> usage of dsx3LineIndex/dsx3IfIndex.  It should therefore be listed
> as an informative reference.  So also should RFC 1407 itself.
> 
I would suggest to replace mentioning of rfc1213 with mentioning 
RFC2863. That is where current definition is for ifIndex. And it
seems to make sense for both places where RFc1213 is mentioned.

W.r.t. citations in REFERENCE and/or DESCRIPTION clauses in the MIB
module itself, I wonder if it is wise to have them there.
If the MIB module is extracted (a practice that happens a lot
as far as I know), then they don't mean much anymore. Opinions?

Bert

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 07:04:20 -0700 (PDT)

> seems to make sense for both places where RFc1213 is mentioned.

I considered suggesting that, but in the end figured that since the
MIB object and the appendix where it is mentioned describe the
historical usage defined in RFC 1407 _prior_ to the emergence of the
IF-MIB (and the ifStackTable in particular) the reader will get a
more accurate picture if the references to the original interfaces
group in RFC 1213 are left in place.  Notice that RFC 1213 (and RFC
1407) would be listed as informative references, since the
deprecated/historical stuff is not considered part of the standard.

In any case, notice that an exactly similar comment on the DS1-MIB
document;  whatever resolution is agreed on should apply to it, too.

> as far as I know), then they don't mean much anymore. Opinions?

I would have squawked if they had been in the form of numeric tags
(as was the case in RFC 2496) but what actually appears in the draft
is stuff like this:

dsx3LineType OBJECT-TYPE
     SYNTAX  INTEGER { 
                dsx3other(1),
                dsx3M23(2),
                dsx3SYNTRAN(3),
                dsx3CbitParity(4),
                dsx3ClearChannel(5),
                e3other(6),
                e3Framed(7),
                e3Plcp(8),
                dsx3M13(9)
            }         
     MAX-ACCESS  read-write
     STATUS  current
     DESCRIPTION
            "This variable indicates the variety of DS3 C-bit 
            or E3 application implementing this interface. The
            type of interface affects the interpretation of
            the usage and error statistics.  The rate of DS3
            is 44.736 Mbps and E3 is 34.368 Mbps.  The
            dsx3ClearChannel value means that the C-bits are
            not used except for sending/receiving AIS.

            The values, in sequence, describe: 

            TITLE:            SPECIFICATION:
            dsx3M23            ANSI T1.107-1988  [ANSI-T1.107]
            dsx3SYNTRAN        ANSI T1.107-1988  [ANSI-T1.107]
            dsx3CbitParity     ANSI T1.107a-1990 [ANSI-T1.107a]
            dsx3ClearChannel   ANSI T1.102-1987  [ANSI-T1.102]
            e3Framed           CCITT G.751       [CCITT-G.751]
            e3Plcp             ETSI T/NA(91)18   [ETSI-T/NA(91)18]
            dsx3M13        ANSI T1.107a-1990 [ANSI-T1.107a]."
     ::= { dsx3ConfigEntry 5 

which doesn't seen so bad.  I do agree that it would not hurt to
remove the citation tags, though (the DS1-MIB doesn't have then).

Mike

---

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:02:05 -0400

>remove the citation tags, though (the DS1-MIB doesn't have then).

this question has come up from time to time with various opinions.
the last time when i tried to remove the citation tags (forget which I-D)
the argument for keeping it was something like "something is better than 
nothing".
that made sense, since for example ITU specs change all the time
while the label e.g., G.751 stays the same. the thinking was that the citation
would at least alert the reader and may be an incentive to read the
entire RFC. the only alternative is to have all citations directly in
the MIB module through REFERENCE clauses; we did that e.g., in the suppl 
atm mib;
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-19.txt;
it is much cleaner but of course it adds length to the module.

kaj

>Mike

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink
Telcordia Technologies. In.
331 Newman Springs Road
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Email: kaj @research.telcordia.com
Tel: (732) 758-5254
Fax: (732) 758-4177

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/