Hi Glenn, Based on your below response, we assume that you will do a detailed review on the mibs, can you estimate when the review will be finished.
Thanks, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni [mailto:gl...@cysols.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 6:24 AM > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; Benoit Claise; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com > Cc: Mach Chen; ops-...@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux; bess@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-02.txt > > Jeffrey, > Thanks for the update. > Will get back to you after a detailed review is done. > > Glenn > On 2016/04/16 21:47, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > > Glenn, > > > > Thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of your comments in the new > revision: > > > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-03.txt > > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib/ > > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-03 > > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-03 > > > > Please see below. > > > >> 1. Abstract: > >> 1.1 A sentence on how the managed objects will be used by > >> applications for operations, monitoring and management > >> would be good. > > > > I had thought this would be standard/obvious for all MIB objects - the > read-write ones are used to control how a device works, and the read-only ones > are used for monitoring. Do I really need to say it explicitly? > > > > I see RFC 4382 has the following: > > > > This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base > (MIB) > > for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. > > In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or > > monitor Multiprotocol Label Switching Layer-3 Virtual Private > > Networks on a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching > > Router (LSR) supporting this feature. > > > > Is it enough to say something similar? For example: > > > > In particular, it describes common managed objects used to > configure > > and/or monitor both L2 and L3 VPN Multicast. > > > >> > >> 2. Introduction > >> 2.1 Please give the full expansion of the abbreviations > >> appearing for the first time. (PE, VPLS,..) > > > > Fixed. > > > >> > >> 2.2 The terminology section is a bit terse. Explaining the > >> terms that are used, nicely with reference to the protocol > >> documents will improve readability. > >> e.g. > >> - PMSI, I-PMSI, S-PMSI, provider tunnels > > > > As the paragraph alluded to, this MIB needs to be understood in the general > context of L2/L3 multicast VPN and providing good explanation of the terms is > not attempted. The references for the terms are the the RFCs for the relevant > technologies. > > > > Having said that, I'll explain PMSI a bit further. > > > >> 2.3 Is there a difference between > >> "multicast in Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPNs , defined by > >> RFC 7117 and RFC 6513/6514" > >> used in the DESCRIPTION in the MODULE-IDENTITY > >> and > >> "multicast in BGP/MPLS L2 or IP VPN" > >> used in the DESCRIPTION of L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType ? > >> If these are the same, it will be helpful to stick to the > >> same expression. If these are not the same, the dictinction > >> should be clarified. > > > > No difference. I was using "Layer 3" or "L3" but it was pointed out that the > layer 3 VPN is often referred to IP VPN in other RFCs and I was advised to > change it accordingly. Looks like I did not change all the cases. > > > > On the other hand, I noticed that RFC 4382 does use "Layer 3 VPN" so I'll > change it back. > > > >> > >> > >> 3. Summary of MIB Module. > >> An overview of the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB will be good- the > >> structure of the MIB, short descriptions of the table(s) > >> including usage of the table(s) for management and/or by > >> other MIB(s). > > > > I had that, but have added one sentence about the only table. > > > >> > >> MIB definitions: > >> 4. MIB syntax checking: > >> smilint -s -e -l 5 mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB > >> 2>L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.txt > > > > I used simpleweb's validation tool but looks like I did not use the > > strictest > level of validation. I've now fixed the following issues and verified. > > > >> > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:63: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named > number `rsvp-p2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:64: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named > number `ldp-p2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:65: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named > number `pim-asm' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:66: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named > number `pim-ssm' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:67: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named > number `pim-bidir' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:68: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named > number `ingress-replication' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:69: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named > >> number `ldp-mp2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 > > > > See later question/comments below. > > > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:215: [5] {group-unref} warning: current > group `l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup' is not referenced in this module > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:4: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier > `NOTIFICATION-TYPE' imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' is never used > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:5: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier > `Unsigned32' imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' is never used > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:8: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier > `NOTIFICATION-GROUP' imported from module `SNMPv2-CONF' is never used > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:11: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier > `TruthValue' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:11: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier > `RowStatus' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:12: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier > `TimeStamp' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:12: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier > `TimeInterval' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:15: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier > `SnmpAdminString' imported from module `SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB' is never > used > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:18: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier > `InetAddress' imported from module `INET-ADDRESS-MIB' is never used > >> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:18: [5] {import-unused} warning: > >> identifier `InetAddressType' imported from module `INET-ADDRESS-MIB' > >> is never used > > > > Removed the above unused imports. > > > >> > >> 5. REFERENCE clauses: Please use REFERENCE clauses liberally. > >> Wherever possible, provide references for objects used in > >> the MIB. The references will point to specific sections/ > >> sub-sections of the RFCs defining the protocol for which the > >> MIB is being designed. It will greatly improve the readability > >> of the document. > > > > Added. > > > >> > >> 6. IMPORTS clause > >> MIB modules from which items are imported must be cited and > >> included in the normative references. > >> The conventional style is > >> mplsStdMIB > >> FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- > [RFC3811] > > > > Added. > > > >> > >> 7. Please update the MODULE-IDENTITY. (There are no syntantic > >> errors.) > >> 7.1 CONTACT-INFO > >> Following the conventions (including indentation style) will > >> improve the readability. (e.g. RFC4382, RFC5132). > >> Will be good if it does not overflow into the next page. > > > > Fixed. > > > >> > >> 7.2 REVISION clause: follow the convention recommended in RFC4181 > >> sec 4.5 > >> REVISION "200212132358Z" -- December 13, 2002 > >> DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published as RFC yyyy." > >> -- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note: > > > > Fixed. > > > >> 7.3 OID assignment: follow the convention recommended in RFC4181 > >> sec 4.5 i > >> replace > >> ::= { experimental 99 } -- number to be assigned > >> by > >> ::= { <subtree> XXX } > >> -- RFC Ed.: replace XXX with IANA-assigned number & remove this note > >> <subtree> will be the subtree under which the module will be > >> registered. > >> > > > > I kept "experimental 99" so that I could continue to use mib tools to > > validate; > but I added notes for the editor to replace them as you indicated. > > > >> > >> 8. Specific MO and TC related comments. > >> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > >> STATUS current > >> DESCRIPTION > >> "Types of provider tunnels used for multicast in > >> BGP/MPLS L2 or IP VPN." > >> SYNTAX INTEGER { unconfigured (0), > >> rsvp-p2mp (1), > >> ldp-p2mp (2), > >> pim-asm (3), > >> pim-ssm (4), > >> pim-bidir (5), > >> ingress-replication (6), > >> ldp-mp2mp (7) > >> > >> o Would be nice to align the enumeration labels with the > >> labels in the protocol document RFC 6514 unless there is > >> a good reason for not doing so. (You will have to take > >> care of the smi compilation errors too; '-' is not allowed ). > > > > Are spaces allowed? I don't know so I used hyphen. For now I replace with > things like rsvpP2mp. > > Or could/should I just remove the definitions, so that if a new type is > > defined > in the future there is no need to update the MIB? > > > >> > >> 8.1 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry OBJECT-TYPE > >> SYNTAX L2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry > >> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible > >> STATUS current > >> DESCRIPTION > >> "An entry in this table corresponds to an PMSI attribute > >> that is advertised/received on this router. > >> For BGP-based signaling (for I-PMSI via auto-discovery > >> procedure, or for S-PMSI via S-PMSI A-D routes), > >> they are just as signaled by BGP (RFC 6514 section 5, > >> 'PMSI Tunnel attribute'). > >> For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, > >> they're derived from S-PMSI Join Message > >> (RFC 6513 section 7.4.2, 'UDP-based Protocol').. > >> > >> Note that BGP-based signaling may be used for > >> PIM-MVPN as well." > >> o Fix the ".." in "'UDP-based Protocol').." above. > >> o Please give the reference for this Table. > >> Is it- "PMSI Tunnel attribute" in RFC 6513 Sec.4 ? > >> "PMSI Tunnel attribute" in RFC 6514 Sec.5 ? > >> both? > >> Any other pointers? > > > > Fixed. > > > >> > >> 8.2 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags OBJECT-TYPE > >> SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (1)) > >> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible > >> STATUS current > >> DESCRIPTION > >> "For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, this is 0. > >> For BGP-based I/S-PMSI signaling, this is the Flags > >> field in PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the corresponding > >> I/S-PMSI A-D route." > >> ::= { l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry 1 } > >> o Please confirm that the above is a complete enumeration of the > >> types of signalling. > >> o RFC 6514 Sec.5 says that the Flags field indicates > >> "Leaf Information Required". That is useful information. > >> Please include in the description. > > > > The intent is to simply return the octet value of the flags field, w/o > > listing > individual bits like "Leaf Information Required". More bits could be defined > in > the future but the MIB would not change. > > > > Is that OK? > > > >> > >> 8.3 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE > >> SYNTAX OCTET STRING ( SIZE (0..37) ) > >> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible > >> STATUS current > >> DESCRIPTION > >> "For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, the first > >> four or sixteen octets of this attribute are filled with > >> the provider tunnel group address (IPv4 or IPv6).. > >> For BGP-based I/S-PMSI signaling, this is the Tunnel > Identifier > >> Field in PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the corresponding > I/S-PMSI > >> A-D route." > >> o Check the size specifications. The specs above say it can be > >> all sizes 0..37. That is not clear from the DESCRIPTION clause. > >> o Fix the ".." in "(IPv4 or IPv6).." above. > >> o RFC 6514 Sec 5. PMSI Tunnel Attribute gives the Tunnel Identifiers > >> for mLDP, PIM-SM, PIM-SSM, BIDIR-PIM,Ingress > Replication,MP2MP. > >> It appears that the sizes (range) for each case will be different. > >> Please clarify that, and if there are discrete sizes, specify > >> accordingly. > > > > Depending on the tunnel type, there could be different sizes. Future tunnel > types could have other sizes that not specified today. I was thinking to just > give > a size range so that it is flexible. Is that ok? > > > >> > >> > >> 8.3 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelPointer OBJECT-TYPE > >> SYNTAX RowPointer > >> MAX-ACCESS read-only > >> STATUS current > >> DESCRIPTION > >> "If the tunnel exists in some MIB table, this is the > >> row pointer to it." > >> o "some MIB table" : specify which MIB table. > > > > I can give an example, like mplsTunnelTable [RFC 3812]. It could be whatever > table that a tunnel may be put into. > > > >> o In what case will the tunnel exist and in what case will it not? > > > > If a device supports mplsTunnelTable and the tunnel is represented there, > then it exists. > > > >> o What will be the behaviour if the above condition is not satisfied? > > > > A null pointer should be given. > > > >> > >> 8.4 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelIf OBJECT-TYPE > >> SYNTAX RowPointer > >> MAX-ACCESS read-only > >> STATUS current > >> DESCRIPTION > >> "If the tunnel has a corresponding interface, this is the > >> row pointer to the ifName table." > >> o DESCRIPTION looks incorrect. Please fix it. Do you want to say > >> this object points to the corresponding row in the ifTable? > > > > Yes. Fixed. > > > >> o In what case does the TunnelIf exist and in what case will it not? > > > > Some tunnels may not have a corresponding interface. > > > >> o What will be expected if the tunnel does not have a corresponding > >> interface? > > > > Null row pointer. > > > >> > >> 9. The Security Considerations section does not follow the Security > >> Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules > >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security. > >> Please fix. > > > > I was really hoping that it would not have to be that tedious. SNMP/MIB > security should be no different from the CLI security - once you secure the > infrastructure then what's more to do? > > > > I'll need more time to work on this. Let me try to address the issues in the > other mib first and come back to this. > > > >> > >> > >> 10.ID-nits > >> 10.1 Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ------ > >> > >> ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the > longest one > >> being 3 characters in excess of 72. > > > > I fixed some but there still three too long lines: > > > > l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType > > L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType, > > > > l2L3VpnMcastGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= > {l2L3VpnMcastConformance 1} > > l2L3VpnMcastCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= > > {l2L3VpnMcastConformance 2} > > > > Should I break them into different lines or just keep them as is? Any > > example > of expected indentation if I break the lines? > > > >> > >> 10.2 Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ------ > >> > >> == Missing Reference: 'RFC 7117' is mentioned on line 76, but not > >> defined > >> 'described in [RFC6513, RFC6514, RFC 7117] and other > documents tha...' > > > > I hope I understood and fixed it (removing the space in "RFC 7117"). > > > >> > >> 11. There is another WIP MVPN-MIB in draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt > >> MVPN-MIB has objects that refer to L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB. > >> Is there a good reason for not merging the 2 documents? I have not > seen > >> any discussion or explanation on this. I may have missed it. Please > >> clarify or, give some pointers. > > > > As mentioned in the introduction: > > > > this memo describes managed objects common to both VPLS > > Multicast [RFC7117] and MVPN [RFC6513, RFC6514]. > > > > MVPN-MIB is for MVPN. There was another VPLS Multicast MIB in the work > and both would reference common objects defined in this MIB. > > > > Thanks! > > Jeffrey > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Glenn > >> Mansfield Keeni > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:28 AM > >> To: Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com>; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com > >> <thomas.mo...@orange.com> > >> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; ops-...@ietf.org; > >> Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigour...@nokia.com>; bess@ietf.org; Mach > >> Chen <mach.c...@huawei.com> > >> Subject: [bess] MIBDoc review of > >> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-02.txt > >> > >> Hi, > >> I have been asked to do a MIB Doctors review of > >> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-02.txt. > >> My knowledge of L2L3VPN Multicast is limited to the reading of this > >> document and browsing through the documents referred to in the draft > >> and bess-wg mailing list archives.( read "shallow"). > >> So some of the doubts and questions may sound trivial or strange. > >> Please bear with me and help me help you make this into a better > >> document :-) > >> > >> The comments are attached. > >> > >> Glenn > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BESS mailing list > > BESS@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
