Re: MIB Dr. review for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-13.txt

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

	One question below.

> Hello Tom and Adrian,
>
>
> All MIBs compile with smilint and smicngPRO.
>
> Here are my few comments:
>
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-13.txt
>
> (#1 should be taken care of the others are NITs and
> could probably be fixed by RFC Editor if you so choose.)
>
> 1)  Think this was probably a place holder...but
> please just remove this:
>
>      OBJECT       gmplsLabelRowStatus
>      SYNTAX       RowStatus { active(1), notInService(2) }
>      WRITE-SYNTAX RowStatus { active(1), notInService(2),
>                               createAndGo(4), destroy(6) }
>      DESCRIPTION
>        "TDN QUestion"

	Thanks for catching this. I remember why I left this.
I was confused by your comments on this, which were:
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Presumably the Description limitation based on the text below.
> >
> >
> > > > Based on the
> > > > gmplsLabelRowStatus object's DESCRIPTION
> > > > believe you should allow createAndWait and also
> > > > Agent could/should be able to report notReady.

	Based on what is listed in RFC3813, for example,
we have the following:

   OBJECT       mplsInSegmentRowStatus
   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."

	I guess I am looking for some explicit instruction on
what you would like to see in the DESCRIPTION for the
gmplsLabelRowStatus in the FullCompliance statement.

> 2) NIT
>
>          January 2003;
>         "
>
> Please change this to:
>
>
>             January 2003."
>
>
> 3) Informative References
>
> NIT:
>
> Change the order so references are in
> ascending order:
>
> Current order is:
>
>    [RFC3472]
>
>
>    [RFC3468]
>
> change to:
>
>    [RFC3468]
>
>    [RFC3472]
>
>
> NIT:
> Fix reference:
>
> Current:
>    [RFC3468]    Andersson, L., Swallow, G., "The Multiprotocol Label
>                 Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS
>                 signaling protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003.
>
> Should be:
>
>    [RFC3468]    Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "The Multiprotocol Label
>
>
> -- end --

	OK, fixed the above nits.

	--Tom