RE: MIB doctor comments on draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ether net-mib-05.txt

Regarding the pethPsePortType object. In order to provide more flexibility
and allow for a greater variety of PD types to be represented without
requiring a MIB update, a better representation of this would be to use a
limited DisplayString type.



-----Original Message-----
From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 11:47 AM
To: Hub MIB Mailing List
Subject: [Hubmib] MIB doctor comments on
draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-05.txt


On Fri, 23 May 2003, [email protected] wrote:
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the
>Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB Working Group of the IETF.
>
>      Title           : Power Ethernet MIB
>      Author(s)       : A. Berger, D. Romascanu
>      Filename        : draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-05.txt
>      Pages           : 28
>      Date            : 2003-5-22
>
>This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base
>(MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet
>community.  The document proposes an extension to the
>Ethernet-like Interfaces MIB with a set of objects for managing a
>Power Source Equipment (PSE).
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-05
.txt

In order to help the WG produce the cleanest possible document I've
attempted to do a complete "MIB Doctor" review of this draft.  The
draft does seem to address the comments raised by my previous
review, but there are a few additional small issues that I did not
catch last time (my apologies to the authors for this).  As before,
I've not been able to check the document for editorial and technical
consistency with the 802.3af draft, since I have not been
participating in the Power Ethernet work and do not have access to
the specification.  I'm hoping that the 802.3af participants who
monitor the Hub MIB mailing list will make those checks.

The comments below follow the MIB review checklist from Appendix A
of <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt>.

1.) I-D Boilerplate -- OK

2.) Abstract -- OK

3.) MIB Boilerplate -- OK

4.) IPR Notices -- OK:  (a) the required boilerplate is present
and no claims are noted;  and (b) the following search of the IPR
statements on the IETF web site did not reveal any relevant claims:

                            IETF Search Engine
   _________________________________________________________________

 Query: power ethernet____________________________________

 Press button to submit your query or reset the form: Search Reset

 Query Options:
 Maximum number of hits: [1000]
     Scope: [IPR Statements________]
     Match: [All____]
     Format: [Long_]
     Sort by: [Score________]
   _________________________________________________________________

                              Search results
   _________________________________________________________________

 No matches were found for '(power or powered or powering or powers)
 and (ethernet or ethernets)'

NOTE: if any WG participants are aware of any pertinent intellectual
property claims, please post them to the WG mailing list.

5.) References -- OK

6.) Security Considerations Section -- OK

7.) IANA Considerations Section -- OK (none present and none
required).

8.) Copyright notices -- OK

9.) MIB compilation -- no problems found from smilint:

   This command (smilint 0.4.2-pre1, as of Mon May 19 16:33:46 2003)
   has been processed to get the following results:
   smilint -m -s -l 6 -i namelength-32 POWER-ETHERNET-MIB

   no errors found.

10.) Other issues, e.g., stuff in http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html
that is not covered above:

(a) there are a few places in the text of the MIB module (Section 5,
"Definitions") and in the references section where the line length
exceeds 72 characters.  With one exception, the MIB module will obey
the 72-character limit once the RFC Editor notes are removed if the
three space indentation is taken out;  the exception is in the
MANDATORY-GROUPS clause of the pethPseCompliance definition.  The
references section is clean once the RFC Editor notes are removed
except for [IEEE-802.3af];  this should not be a problem, however,
since the RFC Editor routinely reformats the references.

(b) In the second paragraph of Section 3, "Overview":
s/IEEE 802.3af WG will not define/IEEE 802.3af WG did not define/

(c) In Section 4, "MIB Structure", third paragraph:
s/pethNotificationsControlTable/pethNotificationControlTable/
s/Transmission of notifications/transmission of notifications/

(please be sure to fix this one;  it is especially important to get
the name of the table name right)

11.) Technical content -- here are the comments on the content of
Section 5, "Definitions."

(a) There needs to be an RFC Editor note with an instruction to
replace "IEEE Draft P802.3af/D4.3" with "IEEE Std 802.3af"
in all REFERENCE clauses.  Alternatively, if another draft is
issued after the draft is approved by the IEEE standards board,
then the authors could make this change.

(b) The pethPseCompliance compliance statement appears both to be
misnamed (it applies only to PSE that have a main power supply, not
necessarily to all PSE) and to be redundant with pethCompliance (the
latter imposes the same requirements on PSE with a main power
supply).  I would recommend, therefore, that pethPseCompliance be
removed (which would also solve the formatting problem mentioned in
10(a) above).  An alternative (which would be acceptable, but which
I do not recommend) would be to re-name it to pethMainPSECompliance
and change the DESCRIPTION clause to something along the lines of:

               "Describes the requirements for PSE devices
               that have a main power supply."

(b) It seems that pethMainPseGroup was assigned the OID
{ pethGroups 3 } by mistake.  In order to have no gaps, it should be
{ pethGroups 2 } instead  (sorry for not finding this earlier).

(c) It seems that pethNotificationControlGroup was assigned the OID
{ pethGroups 4 } by mistake.  In order to have no gaps, it should be
{ pethGroups 3 } instead  (sorry for not finding this earlier).

(d) It seems that pethPsePortNotificationGroup was assigned the OID
{ pethCompliances 4 } by mistake.  For consistency, it should be
{ pethGroups 4 } (sorry for not finding this earlier).  [It would
also look better if the indentation were consistent with that of
pethNotificationControlGroup, i.e., moved left two spaces.]

(e) It seems that pethMainPowerNotificationGroup was assigned he OID
{ pethCompliances 5 } by mistake.  or consistency, it should be
{ pethGroups 5 } (sorry for not finding this earlier).  [It would
also look better if the indentation were consistent with that of
pethNotificationControlGroup, i.e., moved left four spaces.]

This concludes the POWER-ETHERNET-MIB review comments.

Regards,

Mike Heard

_______________________________________________
Hubmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib