[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MIB Dr. Review for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-12.txt
Thanks again. Really just 2 quick questions below
for clarification and we can ship this one.
--Tom
Tom and Adrian,
Thanks for the great update. A few minor comments.
Thanks,
Joan
*Compiles cleanly with smicngPRO and smilint.
Yes!
1) The expiration Date which appears as a page
header is incorrect:
Nadeau and Farrel Expires April 2006 [Page 2]
Fixed.
2) gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps OBJECT-TYPE
REFERENCE
"1. Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions, RFC 3472.
2. Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions, RFC 3473."
DEFVAL { { rsvpGmpls } }
The above references have updates (e.g. see ccamp Charter page)
and so think these updating RFCs should also be included
here and in the Normative Reference section:
RFC 3472 is updated by RFC 4201
RFC 3473 is updated by RFC 4003,RFC 4201, and RFC 4420
Please be sure to update these RFCs in other REFERENCE
clauses also.
Fixed remainder in this module and in the gmpls-te mib
too. There were no references in the tc mib.
3) The DESCRIPTION clause of gmplsInterfaceEntry
says"...A conceptual row in this table may also be created via SNMP
SET commands or automatically by the LSR to supplement a
conceptual row in the mplsInterfaceTable where the interface
is not capable of GMPLS but where the other objects carried
in this row provide useful additional information for an
MPLS interface."
As I mentioned previously, I think you need to call out
these MPLS objects (i.e. the objects which do not require
GMPLS but are in the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module)
in a separate conformance group, but as I look at this
MIB, it appears that all the objects seem to apply to
MPLS, if this is accurate, then please update the
DESCRIPTION clauses of the ALL conformance groups to
indicate that these objects also apply to MPLS.
As an example:
gmplsInterfaceGroup OBJECT-GROUP
OBJECTS {
gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps,
gmplsInterfaceRsvpHelloPeriod
}
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Collection of objects needed for GMPLS interface configuration
and performance information."
::= { gmplsLsrGroups 1 }
Should be changed to:
"Collection of objects which provide additional information for
an MPLS interface and are needed for GMPLS interface configuration
and performance information."
Yes, they are all required. So do you think this statement
that calls out all objects is sufficient? A similar change then
can be made for the in/out-segment tables:
gmplsInSegmentGroup OBJECT-GROUP
OBJECTS {
gmplsInSegmentDirection,
gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr
}
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Collection of objects which provide additional
information for an MPLS in-segment and are needed
for GMPLS in-segment configuration and performance
information."
::= { gmplsLsrGroups 2 }
gmplsOutSegmentGroup OBJECT-GROUP
OBJECTS {
gmplsOutSegmentDirection,
gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement,
gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr
}
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Collection of objects which provide additional
information for an MPLS out-segment and are needed
for GMPLS out-segment configuration and performance
information."
::= { gmplsLsrGroups 3 }
4) Typo:
gmplsLsrModuleReadOnlyCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Compliance requirement for implementations that only provide
read-only support for GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB. Such devices can then
be monitored but cannot be configured using this MIB modules."
Last part of the last sentence:
"...configured using this MIB module."
Got it.
5) GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB
DESCRIPTION:
"...
This MIB module contains managed object definitions for labels
within GMPLS systems as defined in:
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Functional Description, Berger, L. (Editor), RFC 3471,
January 2003."
RFC 3471 is updated by RFC 4201,RFC 4328
Please add these other RFCs and be sure to add them
to the Normative Reference Section.
Done.
6) Typo:
gmplsLabelTable
DESCRIPTION:
"... Labels in the tables in other MIB modules may be referred
to using row pointer into this table."
Should be "using a row pointer"
7) Typo:
gmplsLabelTable
DESCRIPTION:
"...a set of resources in the data plane. Practial examples are"
s/Practial/Practical
Done.
8) ReadOnly Compliance:
OBJECT gmplsLabelRowStatus
SYNTAX RowStatus { active(1) }
MIN-ACCESS read-only
DESCRIPTION
"Support for notInService, createAndWait and notReady is not
required."
Would change the DESCRIPTION to:
"Write access is not required, and active is the only status
that
needs to be supported."
One minor change:
"Write access is not required, and active(1) is
the only status that needs to be supported."
9) Full Compliance:
OBJECT gmplsLabelRowStatus
SYNTAX RowStatus { active(1), notInService(2) }
WRITE-SYNTAX RowStatus { active(1), notInService(2),
createAndGo(4), destroy(6) }
DESCRIPTION
"Support for createAndWait and notReady is not required."
Would remove this.
The description or the entire object?
Based on the
gmplsLabelRowStatus object's DESCRIPTION
believe you should allow createAndWait and also
Agent could/should be able to report notReady.
10) NIT:
Would remove the (for example, wavelength labels) because
I was expecting to see the example carried though and list
the groups for wavelength labels.
Also, need to add gmplsLabelWavebandGroup to the
list of groups.
Updates appear below:
DESCRIPTION
"Necessary, but not sufficient, set of objects to implement
label
table support. In addition, depending on the type of labels
supported, the following other
groups defined below are mandatory:
gmplsLabelPacketGroup and/or
gmplsLabelPortWavelengthGroup and/or
gmplsLabelFreeformGroup and/or
gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroup and/or
gmplsLabelWavebandGroup."
OK.
11) Just a reminder to update Normative References
as discussed above:
RFC 3471 is updated by RFC 4201,RFC 4328
RFC 3472 is updated by RFC 4201
RFC 3473 is updated by RFC 4003,RFC 4201, and RFC 4420
end.
Done.
--Tom