Re: Re: MIB Doctor review: publish draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-06.tx t

On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 06:20:44PM +0200, Juergen Quittek wrote:

> Please find replies on Juergen's comments below.
> I will cover a few of the comments in separate messages.

I will only respond to those things where I believe the proposed 
resolution needs more discussion or you are expecting input from
me. (Means I am happy with the other proposed edits.)

> Would you be fine with
> OLD
>   In addition, the DISMAN-PING-MIB module and the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB
>   modules each have a deprecated compliancy statement that was current
>   in RFC 2925.
> NEW
>   In addition, the DISMAN-PING-MIB module and the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB
>   modules each have a deprecated compliancy statement that was current
>   in RFC 2925. Semantically, the new full compliancy statements are
>   identical with the deprecated ones. But the object groups in the
>   compliancy sections needed to be restructured which is reflected by
>   the new full compliancy statements.

This is precisely what I was looking for as it tells me why the original
compliance statement has been deprecated. Thanks.

> >- The description of the DSCP parameter needs to be reworked to
> >  actually match RFC 3260. Note that there are actually only 6 bits
> >  and not 8 bits.
> 
> Suggestion: let's use the TC Dscp from MIB module DIFFSERV-DSCP-TC
> (RFC 3289) for the SYNTAX clause and add RFC 3260 to the references:

[...]

This unfortunately does not work as you are changing the encoding on
the wire. Unsigned32 has a different tag than Integer32. So we have
to keep our own definition and we have to align the description
clause with the current RFC 3260 terminology.

/js 

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany