Re: Comments on draft-beili-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-00.txt

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> A. TECHNICAL
> 
> A1. I would like to hear more discussions about the layering
> model described in 3.1. My personal opinions that the
> alternative of using ifStackTable is more consistent with the
> generic layering model used by other similar MIBs, but I would
> like to hear more opinions.

I assume that what is being discussed here is the following note:

   Editor's Note: An alternative would be to use ifStackTable to
   describe cross-connect capability and efmCuAvailableStackTable
   to describe actual connections, so that the cross-connect action
   would be done in the EFM-CU-MIB by modifying the
   efmCuAvailableStackTable (and not in IF-MIB).

Since the ifStackTable is normally used to describe and manipulate
actual interlayer connections, the strategy of using it to
manipulate those connections and of using efmCuAvailableStackTable
to describe possible connections seems like the right way to go for
me.

> A2. Section 3.7 needs to be filled in.

> A3. The Security Considerations section needs to be filled in
> with specific information about the security threats related to
> setting values of read-write objects, as well as a list of
> read-only objects considered to carry sensitive information.

See draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt Section 3.6

> A4. The previous released Ethernet MIB (Power Ethernet MIB) was
> placed under 'mib-2' rather than 'transmission' following a
> comment from Mike Heard. As Mike is also the author of the MIB
> Review Guidelines document I would ask his opinion about where
> this MIB needs to be placed. In any case, until the standard is
> released, please avoid picking a value to make the compilation
> pass. Leaving the value non-defined and inserting a note to the
> RFC editor is intentional practice

I agree with all of the above.  Traditionally, a MIB module is
rooted in the transmission branch when it defines a media-specific
extension to the ifTable relating to a specific ifType.  In most
other cases it's rooted under mib-2.  And in no case should an
Internet-Draft use a number that has not been obtained from IANA.
See draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt Section 4.5.

I would like to comment more, but I have to go pack to go on
a vacation.  Enjoy your holidays.

//cmh