Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt

From: "David Levi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:21:22 -0700

Hi David,

Here are some comments on the draft.

- The references to SNMPv3 RFCs throughout the document are all out-of-date,
  they need to be updated to 341*.

- On page 6, right at the end of section 3.4.1.2, the text about
dot1dStpPortPathCost
  needs to be changed, it should refer to the new object
dot1dStpPortPathCost32, rather
  than describing a change to the older object.

- On page 7, the stpCompatible(0) enumeration in dot1dStpVersion ought to be
  stpCompatible(1) (RFC 2578, section 7.1.1 recommends that integer
enumerations
  start at 1).

- On page 8, I'd like to see better working in the DESCRIPTION of
  dot1dStpPathCostDefault.  Something like this:
        "The version of the Spanning Tree default Path Costs that
        are to be used by this Bridge.  A value of 8021d1998(1)
        means the bridge is using the 16-bit default Path Costs from
        IEEE Std. 802.1D-1998.  A value of stp8021t2001(2) means
        the bridge is using the 32-bit default Path Costs from IEEE
        Std. 802.1t."

- On page 9, I think dot1dStpPortProtocolMigration should not be of type
TruthValue,
  the semantics of the object do not match the semantics of TruthValue.  A
better
  choice would be to use a plain enumerated INTEGER type.  Also, only one
enumerated
  value is really required.

- On page 9 and 10, I think there should be more text in the DESCRIPTIONs of
  dot1dStpPortAdminEdgePort and dot1dStpPortOperEdgePort to describe the
behaviour
  of these objects, and their relationship.  For example, what happens to
the value
  of dot1dStpPortOperEdgePort when the value of dot1dStpPortAdminEdgePort is
set
  to false(2)?  The DESCRIPTIONs don't spell this out, and they should.

- On page 11-12, the rstpDefaultPathCostGroup OBJECT-GROUP does not appear
in the
  rstpCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement.  While I don't think it is
required
  to appear in a MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement, I wasn't sure where this was
just an
  over-sight, or whether it was intentionally left out.

That's it, hope this is helpful.

-Dave