Subject: Re: 2495bis/2496bis misaligned with 2493bis/2558bis

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 14:21:36 -0400

Thanks to Mike for a) an excellent archive and b) the time
to do data mining.
I agree that the changes requested by Mike are for alignment
purposes only and are a good thing, and second his request
to accommodate these changes in 2495bis/2496bis.

Kaj

At 02:42 PM 5/31/2002 -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
>On Wed, 29 May 2002, Kaj Tesink made the following comment
>in an off-line discussion regarding the interpretation of
>the xyzInvalidIntervals objects in the trunk MIBs:
>
> > i did notice some discrepancies between 2558/2493/2496bis
> > that do leave room for misinterpretation
>
>Indeed there are significant discrepancies between the definitions
>of dsx1TimeElapsed, dsx1ValidIntervals, dsx1InvalidIntervals,
>dsx1FarEndTimeElapsed, dsx1FarEndValidIntervals, and
>dsx1FarEndInvalidIntervals in the 2495bis draft and the definitions
>of dsx3TimeElapsed, dsx3ValidIntervals, dsx3InvalidIntervals,
>dsx3FarEndTimeElapsed, dsx3FarEndValidIntervals, and
>dsx3FarEndInvalidIntervals in the 2496bis draft on the one hand
>and the instructions in RFC 2493 and the 2493bis draft regarding
>xyzTimeElapsed, xyzValidIntervals, and xyzInvalidIntervals and the
>definitions of sonetMediumTimeElapsed, sonetMediumValidIntervals,
>and sonetMediumInvalidIntervals in RFC 2558 and the 2558bis draft
>on the other hand.
>
>Oddly enough, these discrepancies are, for the most part, _absent_
>from RFC 2495 and RFC 2496.
>
>After searching my trunk-mib mail archives I think I have figured
>out how this arose.  Late in the process of advancing the drafts
>that became RFC 2493, 2495, 2496, and 2558, Kaj Tesink and I noticed
>some discrepancies between the text of PerfHist-MIB/SONET-MIB and
>DS1-MIB/DS3-MIB.  We provided to the INT ADs corrections to various
>DESCRIPTION clauses in DS1-MIB/DS3-MIB that were not included in any
>Internet Draft but rather were forwarded by the IESG directly to the
>RFC Editor for inclusion in the published text.  David Fowler, then
>the DS1-MIB/DS3-MIB editor, was on vacation at the time and therefore
>was out of the loop while this went on, and all of us who were involved
>dropped the ball by failing to inform him of these last-minute changes.
>My guess is that these changes were never incorporated into the editor's
>nroff source and that the current editor Orly Niklass started from a
>baseline that did not include them.  Perhaps Orly and/or David can
>confirm this.
>
>In any case, an investigation with the smidiff tool from libsmi-0.3.1
>reveals that the following objects in 2495bis have DESCRIPTION
>clauses which agree with the ones in the 1998 DS1-MIB draft
>draft-ietf-trunkmib-ds1-mib-09.txt but which disagree with the
>ones in RFC 2495:
>
>dsx1TimeElapsed
>dsx1ValidIntervals
>dsx1InvalidIntervals
>dsx1IntervalValidData
>dsx1FarEndTimeElapsed
>dsx1FarEndValidIntervals
>dsx1FarEndInvalidIntervals
>dsx1FarEndIntervalValidData
>
>A similar investigation reveals that the following objects in
>2496bis have DESCRIPTION clauses which agree with the ones in the
>1998 draft draft-ietf-trunkmib-ds3-mib-09.txt but which disagree
>with the ones in RFC 2496:
>
>dsx3TimeElapsed
>dsx3ValidIntervals
>dsx3InvalidIntervals
>dsx3IntervalValidData
>dsx3FarEndTimeElapsed
>dsx3FarEndValidIntervals
>dsx3FarEndInvalidIntervals
>dsx3FarEndIntervalCESs
>dsx3FarEndIntervalValidData
>
>Attached below are two set of context diffs, relative to the current
>2495bis and 2496bis drafts, that are intended to restore alignment
>with 2493/2493bis/2558/2558bis for the objects mentioned above.
>These context diffs are functionally identical to those I sent to
>the INT ADs back in 1998 for the -09 ds1 and ds3 drafts, and thus
>put back the DESCRIPTION clause text found in RFC 2495 and 2496,
>with the following exceptions:
>
>1.) Several typos are fixed in the definition of the term Proxy
>in Section 2.4.5 of 2495bis (DS3/E3 changed to DS1/E1).
>
>2.) The column alignment is fixed in the definition of
>dsx1SendCode.
>
>3.) A typo is fixed in the dsx1Ds1ChannelNumber DESCRIPTION
>clause (Ds2/E2 changed to DS2/E2).
>
>4.) The following sentence is added to the end of the DESCRIPTION
>clauses for dsx1FarEndValidIntervals and dsx3FarEndValidIntervals:
>
>     In the case where the agent is a proxy, it is
>     possible that some intervals are unavailable.  In
>     this case, this interval is the maximum interval
>     number for which data is available.
>
>Note that this addition aligns the DESCRIPTION clauses for these
>far-end objects with those for their near-end counterparts
>dsx1ValidIntervals and dsx3ValidIntervals.  This sentence was
>inadvertently omitted from the far-end DESCRIPTION clauses
>in the 1998 submission to the INT ADs.
>
>I hope that these updates are non-controversial and can be
>included in the next spin of the 2495bis and 2496bis drafts.
>Let me emphasize once again that they are intended (with
>just the exceptions noted above) to back out unintended
>changes in 2495bis and 2496bis relative to the baseline
>RFCs, and _not_ to introduce new changes to the MIBs.  Also,
>let me apologize to the WG and DS1/DS3 editors for my part
>in creating this mess.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
>--
>C. M. Heard
>[email-masked]
>

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

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

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

---

From: Orly Nicklass <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 09:05:11 +0300

Changes will be accommodated for alignment purpose in the next drafts of
both.

Orly

-----Original Message-----
From: Kaj Tesink [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 9:22 PM
To: AToMMIB Mailing List
Cc: C. M. Heard; [email-masked]; Nathan Kohn; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: 2495bis/2496bis misaligned with 2493bis/2558bis

Kaj

Kaj Tesink