Subject: [ipcdn] Additional MIB reviewer comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-06.txt

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:36:36 -0800

Hi -

I ran smidiff on the MIB module in draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-06.txt

As a result of its complaints, I have a few more comments.

1) MIB review guidelines suggest
old:
        REVISION "9908190000Z"
new:
        REVISION "199908190000Z"

2) Has optionality of timezone in docsDevDateTime caused any problems?

3) The default value of docsDevNmAccessIpMask was changed from
0xffffffff to 0x00000000.  This appears to be legal, but
I'd like to confirm that the change is intentional.

4) The change to the SYNTAX of docsDevNmAccessCommunity does
not seem to be among the kinds of changes permitted by RFC
2578 section 10.2.  However, one *might* stretch section
4.9 of the MIB review guidelines to allow it.  I suggest an
alternative that does not require pushing the limits of 2578:
use the SYNTAX clause in the conformance statement (OBJECT
clause) for this OBJECT-TYPE to reach the same goal.

5) docsDevNmAccessInterfaces: same as comment (4)

6) docDevEvReporting: the conformance material should be
updated with an OBJECT clause with a SYNTAX calling out the
old set of bit values.  See MIB review guidlines section 4.9
on page 28 of the current i-d.

7) smidiff complains that the new bit, "localVolatile",
doesn't start a new byte.  I can't find where the guidelines
would require this, but I believe the rationale for the
complaint is to make it easier for a management system to
determine whether a system supports the new bit.

8) The change to the SYNTAX of docsDevFilterLLCIfIndex isn't
legal.  The old syntax permitted the value zero; the new one
doesn't.

9) typo in docsDevFilterControl: delete superfluous "is" in
   "If is docsDevFilterIpContinue is set to true, continue"

10) The changes to the DESCRIPTION of docsDevFilterPolicyTable
seem pretty extensive, removing a lot of explanatory material.
Have there really been no semantic changes?

11) The change to the DESCRIPTION of docsDevFilterPolicyEntry
appears to be a semantic change.  If so, it probably should
not be allowed.

12) The DESCRIPTION of docsDevFilterTosOrMask needs to
be clearer about what it's referring to when it says
"the above bits", "these bits" and "that value."

13) is the change of the initial value of docsDevCpeIpMax from
1 to -1 a semantic/behavioural change or just fixing a typo?

Randy

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn