Subject: [Isis-wg] few more questions on draft-ietf-isis-wg-mib-16.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:21:06 -0400 (GMT-04:00)

Hi Jeff,
 
Just wanted to follow up on the Index values for some of
the tables.
 
The isisCircIndex, needs to be changed to IndexInteger TC from
     the DIFFSERV-MIB.
 
    isisCircIndex OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2147483647)
 
Please replace the above with
 
    isisCircIndex OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX IndexInteger
 
--
 
The following indices seem to have somewhat random
terminating values.  If there is a reason for the choosen
value, could this be described in the DESCRIPTION clause for
that index?

    isisLSPTLVIndex OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..1000000)
 
    isisCircIndex OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2147483647)
 
    isisISAdjIndex OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2000000000)
 
    isisISAdjAreaAddrIndex OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2000000000)
  
    isisISAdjIPAddrIndex OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2000000000)
 
    isisRAIndex OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2000000000)
 
    isisIPRANextHopIndex OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Integer32 (1..65535)

The mib review guidelines state:
   " - Unsigned32 with a range that excludes zero is RECOMMENDED for
       most index objects.  It is acceptable to include zero in the
       range when it is semantically significant or when it is used as
       the index value for a unique row with special properties.   Such
       usage SHOULD be clearly documented in the DESCRIPTION clause."
 
If there is no reasons for these specific terminating values, then
could the above indices be changed to Unsigned32(1..4294967295)?
 
Separate question:
 
Could the isisISAdjProtSuppProtocol object be added to
the IsisISAdjEntry?  The isisISAdjProtSuppTable and
isisISAdjTable have the same
indices of (isisCircIndex, isisISAdjIndex) and so
moving the isisISAdjProtSuppProtocol object into the
isisISAdjTable would simplify the MIB and more importantly,
group information that is the same in the same table.

One last question:  the conformance statements should specify address types and lengths of addresses
for example from rfc3289:

    OBJECT diffServMultiFieldClfrAddrType
    SYNTAX  InetAddressType { unknown(0), ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
    DESCRIPTION
       "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and IPv6
       addresses."
                                                                                         
    OBJECT diffServMultiFieldClfrDstAddr
    SYNTAX  InetAddress (SIZE(0|4|16))
    DESCRIPTION
       "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and globally
       unique IPv6 addresses."

Also, if you could add a conformance for the RowStatus objects
such that createAndWait and notInServer are not required that would 
be more flexible and especially
appropriate for those tables that contain only a RowStatus object.

For example from rfc3289:

 OBJECT diffServClfrStatus
    SYNTAX RowStatus { active(1) }
    WRITE-SYNTAX RowStatus { createAndGo(4), destroy(6) }
    DESCRIPTION
       "Support for createAndWait and notInService is not required."

  thanks, 
  Joan

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