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

Thanks for the comment. Can you clarify what you mean by 'limited'? - limited size? Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Pitcher [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 8:22 PM
> To: Hub MIB Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] MIB doctor comments on 
> draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-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-e
> thernet-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
> _______________________________________________
> Hubmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
>