Re: Renaming the GMPLS TED/OSPF MIB

[Tomohiro Otani <otani@kddilabs.jp>]

Hi Tom and Adrian,

Thank you for your comments on our draft.
We understand that we need a lot of work for the -01 draft
and definitely reflect your comments.

With best regards,

Tomo





Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Yes, the I-D is indeed at an early stage with a lot of work remaining to 
> be done.
> 
> I'm sure that Tomo will be grateful for all of your pointers.
> 
> Adrian
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Cc: "Tomohiro Otani" <otani@kddilabs.jp>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Renaming the GMPLS TED/OSPF MIB
> 
> 
>> I had a look at this I-D (the word MIB caught my eye:-) and it would 
>> seem to
>> have some way to go, at least from an editorial point of view. eg
>> - the introduction isn't quite English as I know it to the point where 
>> I am
>> unsure if I know what is being said about the role of this MIB module 
>> vis-a-vis
>> others
>> - no MIB boiler plate
>> - IANA considerations do not mention being under the transmission 
>> branch (is
>> that the right place for this?)
>> - use of transmission 9988 as a placeholder
>> - module name 'TED-DRAFT01-MIB '!
>> - no normative references
>> ...........
>>
>> all of which and more is covered in RFC4181.  I would suggest a check 
>> by the
>> authors against that RFC before taking this further.  I also get some 
>> strange
>> characters such as little black blobs at the turn of every page.
>>
>> I am also unclear where the I-D uses 'OSPF' whether it now means only 
>> OSPF or
>> whether it means all such protocols and has not been updated to 
>> reflect the
>> change of title ie I suggest looking carefully at all uses of 'OSPF' 
>> by itself
>> and only using that when OSPF alone is meant.
>>
>> And when I understand the English better, I expect I will disagree on a
>> technical basis as well - eg  [OSPFMIB UPDATE] (a rather clumsy 
>> reference IMO)
>> does not update [OSPFMIB], it supersedes it so I suspect that there 
>> should be a
>> normative reference to the former and no mention of the latter; in 
>> which case
>> the reference could be to RFCyyyy.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
>> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
>> Cc: "Tomohiro Otani" <otani@kddilabs.jp>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:31 PM
>> Subject: Renaming the GMPLS TED/OSPF MIB
>>
>>
>>> Tomo,
>>>
>>> As discussed in San Diego, could you please resubmit
>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-mib-01.txt as
>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-00.txt
>>>
>>> This trivial piece of house keeping will keep us honest going forward.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>