Re: [ipcdn] Re: WG last callondraft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt Part1

Randy,

Thanks for the comments.

--On 05.07.2004 22:19 h -0700 Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Hi -
>
> Technical constributor comments...
> Please note that I'm NOT cc-ing the ipcdn list.
> Folks that care about this level of detail should be subscribed
> to the disman list anyway.
>
>> From: "Juergen Quittek" <[email protected]>
> ...
>> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 2:51 AM
>> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last callondraft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt Part1
> ...
>> > Draft is not indicating in upper header that is obsoleting RFC 2925
>>
>> I think the RFC editor will take care of this issue.  I did not dare
>> yet using an "Obsoletes:" entry in the header while having an "Expires:"
>> entry in the line below :-)
>
> What I have done with documents I've edited has been to use
> "Will Obsolete" in place of "Obsoletes" in the internet drafts.  In any
> case, this is something to double check for in the AUTH48 period.

Sounds good.  I will add a 'Will Obsolete:' header

> ...
>> > - also does "sucessive" means consecutive?
>>
>> Let's replace "sucessive" by "consecutive".
>> Any objection from native English speakers?
>
> I'd prefer "consecutive,"  even though dictionaries may list
> "successive" and "consecutive" as potential synonyms.
>
> ...
>> > pingCtlTrapProbeFailureFilter
>> >            "The value of this object is used to determine when
>> >            to generate a pingProbeFailed NOTIFICATION.
>> >
>> >            Setting pingCtlTrapGeneration BIT probeFailure(0)
>> >            to '1' implies that a pingProbeFailed
>>
>> I think we can omit "to '1'".
>
> I think it would be better to keep the "1".  Not everyone assumes
> that "setting" and attribute implies that the resulting value will be
> non-zero.  Since the document doesn't use the verb "clear", there's
> no context to alert the reader to a "set/clear" paradigm rather than
> the "set to value" one.

Fine.

> ...
>> > Normalization of SYNTAX sub-typing as in other objects. -- Just a
>> > comment Up to MIB doctor for style normalization in the compliances..
>> > pingCtlStorateType can have a SYNTAX clause
>> > SYNTAX StorageType { volatile(2)}
>>
>> I think this is more strict.  I did not intend to exclude. for example,
>> 'permanent' entries.
> ...
>
> It sounds like WRITE-SYNTAX would be more appropriate here.

The conformance statement has MIN-ACCESS read-only:

           OBJECT pingCtlStorageType
           MIN-ACCESS  read-only
           DESCRIPTION
               "Write access is not required.  It is also allowed
               for implementations to support only the volatile(2)
               StorageType enumeration."


Thanks,

    Juergen



> Randy
>
>
>