Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] Fw: [CCAMP] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-gmpls-ted-mib-5.txt

From: "Joan Cucchiara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:50:57 -0400

Mib Drs.

mib-doctors were omitted on this email.  The MIB has
gone through a WG Last Call and now is under MIB Dr. review.

Thanks,
  -Joan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joan Cucchiara" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tomohiro Otani" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:33 AM
Subject: [CCAMP] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-gmpls-ted-mib-5.txt

> Hello,
>
> Very interesting MIB!  A good deal of thought went into this.
> Thanks for that!
>
> First, the MIB compiler output will be given.  Followed by a
> general discussion and then specific comments given which
> are in order of the document.
>
> Thanks,
>  -Joan
>
>
>
>
> MIB Compiler output:
> =======================
>
> smicngPRO
> ----------
>
> * (NIT) Unable to abstract MIB Module using mstrip tool.
>
> E: f(TED-MIB.my), (460,4) Index item "teLocalIntAddrIndex" must be defined 
> with syntax that includes a range
> E: f(TED-MIB.my), (518,49) Index item "teRemoteIntAddrIndex" must be 
> defined with syntax that includes a range
> E: f(TED-MIB.my), (579,53) Index item "teSwCapIndex" must be defined with 
> syntax that includes a range
> E: f(TED-MIB.my), (765,53) Index item "teSrlgIndex" must be defined with 
> syntax that includes a range
> W: f(TED-MIB.my), (797,9) Variable "teAreaId" in notification 
> "tedTeInfoStatusChange" is an index for a table
> W: f(TED-MIB.my), (797,19) Variable "teRouterId" in notification 
> "tedTeInfoStatusChange" is an index for a table
> W: f(TED-MIB.my), (797,31) Variable "teLinkStateId" in notification 
> "tedTeInfoStatusChange" is an index for a table
> W: f(TED-MIB.my), (809,9) Variable "teAreaId" in notification 
> "tedTeCreation" is an index for a table
> W: f(TED-MIB.my), (809,19) Variable "teRouterId" in notification 
> "tedTeCreation" is an index for a table
> W: f(TED-MIB.my), (809,31) Variable "teLinkStateId" in notification 
> "tedTeCreation" is an index for a table
> W: f(TED-MIB.my), (819,9) Variable "teAreaId" in notification 
> "tedTeDeletion" is an index for a table
> W: f(TED-MIB.my), (819,19) Variable "teRouterId" in notification 
> "tedTeDeletion" is an index for a table
> W: f(TED-MIB.my), (819,31) Variable "teLinkStateId" in notification 
> "tedTeDeletion" is an index for a table
> W: f(TED-MIB.my), (926,7) NOTIFICATION-GROUP "tedNotificationGroup" is not 
> used in a MODULE-COMPLIANCE in current module
>
>
>
>
>
> smiLint
> ------------
>
> Validation report
> File: TED-MIB.my
> Severity level requested: 6
>
> Line  Severity  Problem
> 109 5 warning: index element `teAreaId' of row `tedEntry' should be 
> not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
>        5 warning: index element `teRouterId' of row `tedEntry' should be 
> not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
>        5 warning: index element `teLinkStateId' of row `tedEntry' should 
> be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
> 926 5 warning: current group `tedNotificationGroup' is not referenced in 
> this module
>
>
>
> General Discussion
> ------------------
>
> * As an fyi, the OSPFv3 MIB (for IPv6) is "IESG Evaluation".
>
> * In what GMPLS WG document is this functionality defined?
>
> I see a lot of MIBs referenced in MPLS, OSPF, ISIS and GMPLS and
> also a lot of documents being referenced, but not a specific TED one.
>
>
> * The MIB objects themselves do not have any REFERENCE clauses and most of 
> these
> probably should given the nature of this MIB (i.e. that it is pulling from
> so many different documents.)  Please be specific in your REFERENCE 
> clauses
> such as document, section, and sub-section, if appropriate.
>
> * The names in this MIB are not prefixed consistently.
> Please see Appendix C of RFC4181.
>
> For example, TED-MIB is the MIB's name, and then
> TedEntry, but the objects in this table are prefixed by "te" (but "ted" 
> would
> be more consistent.)
>
> - The abbreviation for interface is "int" but would prefer either "if" or 
> "intf".
>
>
> * With the exception of 2 objects, the MIB consists of read-only objects.
> While this is fine in and of itself, there are several places in the text 
> that the
> authors warn that if local configuration is done then routing needs to be
> triggered so the new configuration gets dispersed.  When looking at these
> MIB tables, is there any way to tell if the information is currently in 
> use or not?
>
>
>
> Specific Comments (in order of document)
> ------------------------------------------
>
> * Table of Contents
>
> s/Author's Address/Authors' Addresses/
>
>
> * TOC is missing "Informative References" entry.
>
>
>
> * 2. Introduction
>
> NIT:
> s/related with/related to/
>
> * In what GMPLS WG document is the functionality of TED defined?
>
> 4. Motivations
>
> * Why is ISIS not mentioned here?
>
>
> 6. Example of TED MIB module usage
> s/module usage/Module Usage/
>
> * Second paragraph "TE MIB"
> s/TE MIB/TED MIB/
>
> The second paragraph is confusing.  The Tables reflect information as
> read only, yet, this paragraph discusses changing this information
> locally (e.g. on a router) and then triggering routing to update
> this information.
>
> The example given is confusing. What are the index values supposed to be?
>
>
> MIB MODULE
> -------------
>
> * Please differentiate values as XXX or YYY for the rfc editor.
>
> * as suggested by Appendix D of RFC4181 (Guidelines for MIB Documents)
> the oid layout should be:
>
>         xxxMIB
>         |
>         +-- xxxNotifications(0)
>         +-- xxxObjects(1)
>         +-- xxxConformance(2)
>             |
>             +-- xxxCompliances(1)
>             +-- xxxGroups(2)
>
>
> This OID layout is:
> - tedMIB
> \-v-0 tedNotifications
>   |-1 tedObjects
>   \-2 tedConformance
>     \-v-1 tedGroups
>       \-2 tedCompliances
>
> Groups and Compliances should be reversed.
>
>
> * Additionally there are extraneous sub-ids
> of tedScalars and tedTables under the tedObjects branch.
> While many older MIBs separated scalars and tables this way,
> this is not needed and while fine for the MIB as it exists
> currently, if this MIB is added to in the future (e.g. if an
> enterprise MIB developer wants to add objects via his/her own
> enterprise MIB Module), then keeping the separation of scalars
> and tables may be a hinderance.   I would ask that you remove
> these sub-ids (tedScalars and tedTables) so that the oidtree
> will look like:
>
>   |-1 tedObjects
>   |   \-1 tedNotificationEnabled, TruthValue[SNMPv2-TC], rw, current
>   |   \-2 tedNotificationMaxRate, Unsigned32, rw, current
>       \-3 tedTable
>     | \---1 tedEntry, INDEX{ teAreaId,teRouterId,teLinkStateId }
>     |     \-v-1 teAreaId, Unsigned32(1..4294967295), ro, current
>
> etc.
>
>
> * tedNotificationEnabled
>
> Why is this object needed?  Please answer the question wrt rfc3413.
>
>
> * tedNotificationMaxRate
>
> This one throttling mechanism is used to control 3 different 
> notifications.
> This might be okay, but that depends on the notifications and as they are
> written now, they seem to be overlapping.  For example, if a TED is 
> created
> then are 2 notifications sent (one ofr StatusChange and one for Creation)
> or just one (for Creation)?
>
>
> * teLinkInformationData
>
> The DESCRIPTION mentions the "teLinkTable of TE-LINK-STD-MIB", could you 
> please
> tell me what draft or rfc this is?
>
> What about OSPFv3 and other protocols that may be related to this MIB (at 
> some point?)
> Are you sure that this object is going to be useful (even in the 
> short-term?)
>
>
>
>
> * Notifications
>
> The descriptions are very unclear.  Under what circumstances are these
> generated?  Please be specific.
>
> * Conformance statements are missing the restrictions for
> IpAddress and IpAddressType objects in this MIB.
> Please correct this.
>
>
> * ReadOnly Compliance is incorrect.  There are 2 writable objects
> which need to be given read-only conformance.
>
>
> * 8. Security consideration
>
> s/consideration/Considerations/
>
> - The first paragraph states there aren't any read-write objects but
> this is not accurate.  Please update.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp