Dear Glenn, Thank you very much for your very elaborate review. I will do another editorial check for nits according to your suggestions.
Best regards, -- tsuno 2017-11-01 5:07 GMT+01:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <gl...@cysols.com>: > Hi Tsuno, > Thanks for addressing the issues in the new draft. It > looks good. I do not have any major issues with the MIB. > But before we give a go-ahead I would like to ask to you > do another editorial check for nits.These are basically > s/network/networks/ > type of fixes. > A minor issue with the MIB on naming related mater- > I would suggest > s/l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup/l2L3VpnMcastCoreGroup/ > > Glenn > > > On 2017/10/22 1:14, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote: >> >> Dear Glenn, >> >> Thank you for your comments and for waiting for the update. >> I posted a new revision (-11) as follows. >> >> URL: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11.txt >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11 >> Htmlized: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11 >> Diff: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11 >> >> Please see the responses for your comments in the followings. >> >> 2017-09-02 9:47 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <gl...@cysols.com>: >>> >>> 1. Page-6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: DESCRIPTION >>> 1.1 It will be good to give a reference (RFCNNNN) for >>> noTunnelInfo (0) : no tunnel information present >>> That will make it consistent with the other items. >>> This change will require adding RFCNNNN to the REFERENCE clause. >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 1.2 pimBidir (5) : BIDIR-PIM Tree [RFC5015] >>> RFC5015 needs to be added to the Reference section >> >> >> RFC5015 added to the Reference section. >> >>> 3. Page-7,8: says >>> " A L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType object of value >>> noTunnelInfo(0) indicates that the corresponding >>> Provider Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel >>> attribute does not have a Tunnel Identifier." >>> It may be better to align the wording with RFC6514 (Page 11) >>> ' When the Tunnel Type is set to "No tunnel information >>> present", the PMSI Tunnel attribute carries no tunnel >>> information (no Tunnel Identifier).' >> >> >> Fixed. Thank you for your advice. >> >>> 4. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: DESCRIPTION: >>> E: Extension flag [RFC7902] >>> RFC7902 needs to be added to the Reference section >> >> >> Fixed. RFC7902 is now in the Reference section. >> >>> 5. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: REFERENCE >>> "RFC6514, Section 5 >>> RFC7902 >>> " >>> It will be nice to have a section pointer for RFC7902 too. >>> (User-friendly and consistency). >>> Please check the same for all the REFERENCE clause pointers >> >> >> Added a section point for Sec.3 of RFC7902. >> >>> 6. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeAddlFlags: DESCRIPTION >>> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of >>> this object is zero." >>> This is actually a 48-bit string. What would be the >>> representation of "zero" above be? Will it be a string of >>> length 0, a string containing a single ascii character "0" >>> 6 ascii "0"s, 48 '0' bits ? >>> >>> 7. Page-14: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeLabel: DESCRIPTION: >>> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of >>> this object is zero that indicates the absence of MPLS >>> Label." >>> Once again. "zero" above is imprecise. >> >> >> In the current revision, these parts are revised as follows. >> When the P-tunnel does not have a correspondent PMSI tunnel >> attribute, the value of this object will be 0. >> >>> 8. Compliance: >>> It would be good to design the compliance module as follows: >>> l2L3VpnMcastCoreCompliance: >>> MANDATORY-GROUPS { >>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup >>> } >>> l2L3VpnMcastFullCompliance: >>> MANDATORY-GROUPS { >>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup >>> l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup >>> } >> >> >> Fixed along with your comments. Thank you. >> >>> General: >>> 10 Page-2 Section-1 >>> 10.1 In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPN) >>> In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) ? >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 10.2 Throughout this document, we will use the term >>> "L2L3VpnMCast" to mean BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPN that support >>> multicast. >>> >>> Throughout this document, we will use the term >>> "L2L3VpnMCast network" to mean a network that comprises of >>> BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPNs and supports multicast. >> >> >> Fixed. Now, the term "L2L3VpnMCast network" is used throughout the >> document. >> >>> 10.3 Page-4 Section-3 bullet 2 >>> Please review the paragraph for readability. >> >> >> Revised the paragraph in order to improve readability. >> >>> 10.4 It will be good to avoid page-breaks within quoted clauses. >>> example: Page-6 L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: REFERENCE >> >> >> Thank you for your comments. I adjusted the page-breaks along with this >> comment. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> -- tsuno >> >> 2017-09-02 9:47 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <gl...@cysols.com>: >>> >>> Dear Tsuno, >>> >>> Thanks for the revised draft. I have reviewed the draft. >>> Some issues remain. These are listed below >>> Please consider the issues/comments and update the draft. >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> +--------------------------------------------------------+ >>> >>> 1. Page-6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: DESCRIPTION >>> 1.1 It will be good to give a reference (RFCNNNN) for >>> noTunnelInfo (0) : no tunnel information present >>> That will make it consistent with the other items. >>> This change will require adding RFCNNNN to the REFERENCE clause. >>> 1.2 pimBidir (5) : BIDIR-PIM Tree [RFC5015] >>> RFC5015 needs to be added to the Reference section >>> >>> 2. Page-6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: SYNTAX >>> The rewritten SYNTAX clause without the repetitions looks better. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> 3. Page-7,8: says >>> " A L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType object of value >>> noTunnelInfo(0) indicates that the corresponding >>> Provider Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel >>> attribute does not have a Tunnel Identifier." >>> It may be better to align the wording with RFC6514 (Page 11) >>> ' When the Tunnel Type is set to "No tunnel information >>> present", the PMSI Tunnel attribute carries no tunnel >>> information (no Tunnel Identifier).' >>> >>> 4. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: DESCRIPTION: >>> E: Extension flag [RFC7902] >>> RFC7902 needs to be added to the Reference section >>> >>> 5. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: REFERENCE >>> "RFC6514, Section 5 >>> RFC7902 >>> " >>> It will be nice to have a section pointer for RFC7902 too. >>> (User-friendly and consistency). >>> Please check the same for all the REFERENCE clause pointers >>> 6. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeAddlFlags: DESCRIPTION >>> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of >>> this object is zero." >>> This is actually a 48-bit string. What would be the >>> representation of "zero" above be? Will it be a string of >>> length 0, a string containing a single ascii character "0" >>> 6 ascii "0"s, 48 '0' bits ? >>> >>> 7. Page-14: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeLabel: DESCRIPTION: >>> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of >>> this object is zero that indicates the absence of MPLS >>> Label." >>> Once again. "zero" above is imprecise. >>> >>> 8. Compliance: >>> It would be good to design the compliance module as follows: >>> l2L3VpnMcastCoreCompliance: >>> MANDATORY-GROUPS { >>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup >>> } >>> l2L3VpnMcastFullCompliance: >>> MANDATORY-GROUPS { >>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup >>> l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup >>> } >>> >>> >>> General: >>> 10 Page-2 Section-1 >>> 10.1 In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPN) >>> In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) ? >>> >>> 10.2 Throughout this document, we will use the term >>> "L2L3VpnMCast" to mean BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPN that support >>> multicast. >>> >>> Throughout this document, we will use the term >>> "L2L3VpnMCast network" to mean a network that comprises of >>> BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPNs and supports multicast. >>> >>> 10.3 Page-4 Section-3 bullet 2 >>> Please review the paragraph for readability. >>> >>> 10.4 It will be good to avoid page-breaks within quoted clauses. >>> example: Page-6 L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: REFERENCE >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2017/08/28 3:27, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Glenn, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your comments and for waiting for the update. >>>> I posted a new revision (-10) as follows. >>>> >>>> URL: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10.txt >>>> Htmlized: >>>> >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10 >>>> Htmlized: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10 >>>> Diff: >>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10 >>>> >>>> In the new revision, the following changes are made. >>>> - Updated the description of following TC and objects >>>> in order to clarify the role of this MIB and to improve >>>> the readability >>>> -- L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId >>>> -- l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable >>>> - Removed some redundant expressions >>>> - Updated compliance statements >>>> >>>> Please see the responses for your comments >>>> in the followings. >>>> >>>> 2017-07-09 14:11 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <gl...@cysols.com>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB:112: [5] {type-without-format} warning: type >>>>> `L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId' has no format specification >>>>> This may be avoided by specifying a format in which the >>>>> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId should be printed. >>>>> Is there a preferred format? How will this be printed? >>>>> One continuous octet string? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The size and format of TunnelID depends on Tunnel Type. >>>> and no preferred format is exist as of now. >>>> Therefore, I have decided to not give format specification >>>> to L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId. >>>> >>>>> A. The l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable needs all of the following >>>>> four MOs as index for its rows >>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags, >>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType, >>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeLabel, >>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId >>>>> The l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId by itself is inadequate? If >>>>> yes >>>>> please explain it to me. Or point to the text that contains the >>>>> explanation. >>>>> I have been unable to confirm the above from the draft - that is very >>>>> likely due to my lack of understanding of the l2L3VpnMcast technology. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> According to Sec. 7.4.1.1 of RFC6513, >>>> P-tunnel is identified by its type and id. >>>> Thus, in the latest revision, the following two objects are used as >>>> index of the table. >>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType, >>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance, >>>> >>>> -- tsuno >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
