Hi,
In Philadelphia we discussed the next steps for this document and
agreed that it is probably ready for a MIB Doctor review. I thought
that I should have another look at it before we send it off.
Major issues
1. Need to pick up boilerpate sections as per RFC 4181
In particular, the security sections are needed.
2. I *think* that index values should be "not-accessible"
rather than "read-only".
3. Need to check the MIB with smilint using
smilint -m -s -l 6 -i namelength-32
See http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/tools/
I get the following errors:
mibs/ted.my:43: [3] {revision-missing} revision for last update is
missing
mibs/ted.my:43: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object identifier
element `xxx' name only allowed as first element
mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element
`teAreaId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element
`teRouterId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
mibs/ted.my:101: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element
`teLinkStateId' of row `tedEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
mibs/ted.my:851: [5] {group-unref} warning: current group
`tedNotificationGroup' is not referenced in this module
4. Should we have two conformance statements? One for
MPLS-TE and one for GMPLS?
5. I believe you should use InetAddress and InetAddressType
from RFC 4001 instead of IpAddress. We need to support
IPv6
6. Looks like the whole MIB module is read-only. Does that
mean that "manually configured" table entries cannot be
configured through the MIB? If that is your intention (i.e.
that configuration is made only through other mechanisms)
I think you should discuss this in the text.
7. I think that teSwitchingType and teEncoding need to be
extensible. And it would be useful to be consistent
between routing and signaling. Please consider using
IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC and
IANAGmplsLSPEncodingTypeTC from
IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB. See
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib
Less major points
- Title needs to be updated to include MPLS-TE
- I wonder if it is worth also including the IGP metric
in this table. I know it is a duplication of information,
but it is useful for TE processing
- It would be nice to include a simple example
- teIndication could use a reference to help people
understand the usage.
Actually, it wouldn't hurt to include more references
for all objects.
- You should also reference and think about OSPFv3
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-12.txt
There are some nits...
- Tom is now with BT
- In teLinkStateId s/jndicates/indicates/
- [RFC2119] only needs to appear in section 9 once
- You shouldn't list RFC1850. It is obsolete.
You should also clean up the nits shown by idnits
(http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/)
I see the following errors:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 updated by
RFC 4748 (on line 1204), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 3978
Section 5.4 paragraph 1 text on line 231.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the
document.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the
longest one
being 1 character in excess of 72.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking references for intended status:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Missing Reference: 'RFC3410' is mentioned on line 75, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'OSPF-MIB' is mentioned on line 389, but not
defined
== Missing Reference: 'ISIS-MIB' is mentioned on line 393, but not
defined
== Unused Reference: 'MPLS OAM' is defined on line 1130, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3945' is defined on line 1134, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1850
(Obsoleted by RFC 4750)
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements has been
published
as RFC 4377
If you can work on these issues, we'll take the I-D to the MIB Doctor.
Thanks,
Adrian