Subject: [Bridge-mib] smiv2 bridge mib smilint warnings

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 02:05:59 +0200

I have looked at the smilint warning for the BRIDGE-MIB in
<draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-00.txt>. Here is what smilint
0.2.16 says:

./BRIDGE-MIB:1086: implicit node definition
./BRIDGE-MIB:1240: group `dot1dTrapGroup' is unconditionally optional

Both messages are just warnings (level 6). So it is actually fine to
ignore them.

Anyway, the first warning says that the OID dot1dBridge.0 does not
have an associated descriptor. So rather than using

    ::= { dot1dBridge 0 1 }

and

    ::= { dot1dBridge 0 2 }

in the notification definitions, you could use

    ::= { dot1dNotification 1 }

and

    ::= { dot1dNotification 2 }

and adding

dot1dNotification  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { dot1dBridge 0 }

at the top of the MIB module. The second warning says that the
dot1dTrapGroup (perhaps this should be dot1dNotificationGroup?) is not
contained in any conformance group - not sure this is really what you
want.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 02:42:39 -0700

HI,

Note, object dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo is an octet string with no size
specified, and, thus, can vary in size from 0 to 65535 octets. Since
this is a BIT string to identify ports, you can have from zero to
8*65535 (524280). Is this valid? Also, for support of port big numbers,
such as port 65535, the object will have length of 8192 octets. This
will probably be greater than the typical max message size. Is this
OK, or not realistic. (Note, I don't have a copy of the IEEE 802.1D-1990
document with me. It's at home, sorry, so I cannot check what it says
is the max port number.) In checking the max port number, I saw
that object dot1dBaseNumPorts has data type of Integer32, which means
it can have negative values and positive values as great as 2^31 -1.
Do you really support this?

The "no label on the "0" subidentifier" message from smilint is
"helpful", since the MIB parser in some "broken" management systems
cannot cope with a sub-identifier without a label. However, there
is no requirement in the SMI (nor in ASN.1) to have a label.
Note that it is valid to specify a label via the following:
  ::= { dot1dbridge dot1dNotification(0) 1 }
The SMI and ASN.1 says this is valid. Again, some broken MIB
parsers may not support it.

On the group dot1dTrapGroup not being in a compliance, this is
OK following the SMI rules. However, due to the requirements
for IETF standards-track documents, there must be no features
defined in RFCs that have no usage requirement, which is a
strange way of saying that for advancement to DRAFT, all features
must be shown to be useful, implemented, and interoperation
demonstrated. Thus, having a feature totally optional is
not a good thing. I suggest that it be specified in a separate
compliance specification that describes the situations where
it is appropriate.

>contained in any conformance group - not sure this is really what you

Regards,
/david t. perkins