[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D (fwd)
Having several of those IEEE 802 TCs in a separate MIB module migth be
good. At the other hand, various of their TCs are already spread over
multiple documents. And the same is true for many of our IETF
related TCs. So why would we push for that?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> Behalf Of David T. Perkins
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 01:08
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Review of EFM-04 I-D (fwd)
> My review of the OAM MIB is below.
> It includes the TC Dot3Oui, which is general
> in applicability.
> Is there such a TC already defined? If not,
> should this go in the collection of IEEE TCs?
> /david t. perkins
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David T. Perkins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> Subject: Review of EFM-04 I-D
> I finished reviewing I-D draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-04.txt.
> My notes are below.
> General comments:
> The updated document looks very clean.
> It runs through both SMICng and smilint with no problems.
> I read through the document fairly quickly, and didn't
> try to verify all the references to other documents.
> (Even if there are a typo or two, a reader should be
> able to sort this out.)
> Specific Comments:
> 1) The last paragraph of section 5 reads a little strange
> to me. It seems more complex than needed. (Given that it
> is an overview, it's Ok to leave as is. However, I suggest
> that it be simplified to the following:
> "There are two notifications defined to report Ethernet OAM
> events and are contained in one conformance group."
> 2) The TC Dot3Oui is defined in the module and has general
> applicability to all IEEE 802 areas. It seems like this
> should be defined elsewhere are imported into this module.
> (This is a duplicate of the comment made in the previous
> review, and I cannot remember the response.)
> 3) Also, the TC Dot3Oui where used is specified as having
> the value of zero. Either this should be changed to say
> the value of 3 octets of zero, or the syntax of the
> TC be modified to the following:
> SYNTAX OCTET STRING(SIZE(0 | 3))
> I favor saying that the value is 3 octets of zero,
> since a zero length value may break existing mgmt apps.
> Note: objects dot3OamPeerVendorOui, and
> 4) The syntax of object dot3OamMaxOamPduSize is specified
> as "SYNTAX (0..1518)", but the text says values
> 1..63 are not allowed. So, why not
> "SYNTAX (0 | 64..1518)
> In summary, great job Matt and others that worked on the
> /david t. perkins