Subject: RE: [pim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-03.txt

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 02:00:28 -0700

Comments on draft -03...

1) pimGroupMappingGrpPrefixLength DESCRIPTION allows ipv4z for 
pimGroupMappingAddressType but 
pimGroupMappingGrpAddress does not support size 8.
Same for pimSsmRangePrefixLength DESCRIPTION vs pimSsmRangeAddress.
Same for pimStaticRPGrpPrefixLength DESCRIPTION vs
pimStaticRPGrpAddress.
You should either support ipv4z for all relevant objects or don't
support it.

3) bsrCandidateBSRAddress doesn't have a size restriction like the
others in the spec.  Is this intentional?

4) Currently there is no readonly compliance statement.  It is now
fairly common practice for MIBs to do this, since some folks don't want
to use SNMP for configuration.  Adding one isn't required, but I think
it's a good idea to not force everyone to implement read-write
compliance.

5) The DESCRIPTION of the RowStatus objects needs to be updated to meet
the requirements of RFC2579.  E.g. "That is, it is
the responsibility of the DESCRIPTION clause of the
status column to specify whether the status column must
not be `active' in order for the value of some other
column of the same conceptual row to be modified."

-Dave

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