RE: Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-14. txt

> 
> 
> Bert - thanks for the comments. The only one that I wonder 
> about is your #4 (hard limit of 1-255 for FilterGroupIndex).
> Since this is driven directly from a one-octet field in a
> DOCSIS signaling packet, I thought it confusing to allow a 
> broader range in the MIB.

OK, then it is understandable. It was not clear to me from just
reading the MIB odcument. You migth consider to docuemnt where
the value comes from, so that peopl eunderstand the limit/range
you have put on it.

Bert
> [analogy: rfc2013:udpLocalPort INTEGER (0..65535)] Granted, 
> we may one day change the
> DOCSIS protocol, or find some other way to use this table 
> that doesn't rely on the protocol
> field, but this seemed a lesser danger than the confusion of 
> mismatched ranges. In actual
> deployment, the set of values is more likely to be something 
> like 1-10, so there's plenty
> of headroom unless usage is radically rethought.
> 
> - Wilson
> 
> "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> 
> > Wilson (and WG). Sorry that it took long (again) to do another
> > good check of this MIB document.
> >
> > I think this doc is basically OK now. I did find some small things
> > as per below, and it would be good to fix those at some point.
> > I propose that I issue an IETF Last Call, and that the 
> below comments
> > are considered as the initial comments on such an IETF Last Call
> > and that you address them (or answer them) as part of any 
> other comments
> > that may come up from IETF Last Call.
> >
> > Wilson/WG-chair(s), pls let me know if that sounds like a plan or if
> > you ratehr address/answer the below first.
> >
> > What I did find is:
> >
> > >From SMICng (strict checking). I thought I had reported 
> this before ( see I
> > did, but you probably opted to not do it since it is not mandatory).
> > Oh well, I am including it anayway (again), because I 
> really belive it
> > is betetr to include them.
> >
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (478,15) Item 
> "diffServMIBDataPathGroup" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (479,15) Item "diffServMIBClfrGroup" 
> should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (480,15) Item 
> "diffServMIBClfrElementGroup" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (481,15) Item 
> "diffServMIBMultiFieldClfrGroup" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (482,15) Item 
> "diffServMIBActionGroup" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (483,15) Item 
> "diffServMIBAlgDropGroup" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (484,15) Item 
> "diffServMIBCounterGroup" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (487,11) Item 
> "diffServDataPathStatus" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (493,11) Item "diffServClfrStatus" 
> should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (499,11) Item 
> "diffServClfrElementStatus" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (506,11) Item 
> "diffServMultiFieldClfrAddrType" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (512,11) Item 
> "diffServMultiFieldClfrSrcAddr" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (518,11) Item 
> "diffServMultiFieldClfrDstAddr" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (524,11) Item "diffServAlgDropStatus" 
> should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (530,11) Item 
> "diffServDataPathStorage" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (536,11) Item "diffServClfrStorage" 
> should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (542,11) Item 
> "diffServClfrElementStorage" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (548,11) Item 
> "diffServMultiFieldClfrStorage" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (554,11) Item "diffServActionStorage" 
> should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (560,11) Item 
> "diffServCountActStorage" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (566,11) Item 
> "diffServAlgDropStorage" should be IMPORTed
> >   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (572,11) Item "diffServAlgDropType" 
> should be IMPORTed
> >
> > According to our MIB review guidelines 
> (draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-03.txt)
> > section 4.4, 3rd para:
> >    Note that exemptions to this general requirement are 
> granted by RFC
> >    2580 Sections 5.4.3 and 6.5.2 for descriptors of objects 
> appearing in
> >    the OBJECT clause of a MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement or in the
> >    VARIATION clause of an AGENT-CAPABILITIES statement.  Some MIB
> >    compilers also grant exemptions to descriptors of notifications
> >    appearing in a VARIATION clause and to descriptors of 
> object groups
> >    and notification groups referenced by a MANDATORY-GROUPS 
> clause, a
> >    GROUP clause, or an INCLUDES clause, although RFC 2580 (through
> >    apparent oversight) does not mention those cases.  The 
> exemptions are
> >    sometimes seen as unhelpful because they make IMPORTS rules more
> >    complicated and inter-module dependencies less obvious than they
> >    otherwise would be.  External symbols referenced by compliance
> >    statements and capabilities statements MAY therefore be 
> listed in the
> >    IMPORTS statement;  if this is done, it SHOULD be done 
> consistently.
> >
> > So it is not mandatory to do the IMPORTs, but in my view it 
> will help in
> > many places with less warning/errors. So may I suggest to 
> add the IMPORT
> > statement for the above.
> >
> > Also, all documents from whihc you IMPORT (implied or 
> explicit) you must
> > put in normative reference section (which you have done). 
> But all such
> > references MUST have a citation in the text (see MIB review 
> guidelines,
> > (draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-03.txt, sect 3.5):
> >    3.5.  References Sections
> >
> >    Section 4.7f of [RFC2223bis] specifies the requirements for the
> >    references sections.  In particular, there MUST be 
> separate lists of
> >    normative and informative references, each in a separate section.
> >    The style SHOULD follow that of recently published RFCs.
> >
> >    The standard MIB boilerplate available at
> >    http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html includes lists of
> >    normative and informative references that MUST appear in all IETF
> >    specifications that contain MIB modules.  If items from other MIB
> >    modules appear in an IMPORTS statement in the 
> Definitions section,
> >    then the specifications containing those MIB modules 
> MUST be included
> >    in the list of normative references.  When items are 
> imported from an
> >    IANA-maintained MIB module the corresponding normative reference
> >    SHALL point to the on-line version of that MIB module.  It is the
> >    policy of the RFC Editor that all references must be cited in the
> >    text;  such citations MUST appear in the overview section where
> >    documents containing imported definitions (other those already
> >    mentioned in the MIB boilerplate) are required to be 
> mentioned (cf.
> >    Section 3.2).
> >
> > You have such a reference for RFC3291 (as required), but no citation
> > to [RFC3291] anywhere in the document. Can you pls add it at
> > some point in the text.
> >
> > I have some other nits/questions:
> >
> > 1. Desription clause of docsSubMgtCpeIpIndex states, 
> towards the end:
> >
> >        the table and the packet is forwarded.  If the 
> number of entries
> >        equals the docsSubMgtCpeControlMaxCpeIp, AND
> >        docsSubMgtCpeControlActive is true, then the packet 
> is dropped.
> >        Otherwise the packet is forwarded. "
> >
> >    In the case that the packet is forwarded, will then also 
> an entry be
> >    created? That is not clear to me. May I suggest to add 
> some text to
> >    make that 100% clear?
> >
> > 2. In description clause of docsSubMgtCmFilterTable it states:
> >
> >        Zero is a distinguished value, indicating that the default
> >        filtering action is to be taken, rather than that associated
> >
> >    Mmm... a value for the table? I guess you mean that such a zero
> >    value "in any of the columns of the table has a special maening.
> >    Right? Might want to make that clearer.
> >
> > 3. I see:
> >      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6      docsSubMgtCmFilterTable
> >      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1    docsSubMgtCmFilterEntry
> >      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.1  docsSubMgtSubFilterDownstream
> >      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.2  docsSubMgtSubFilterUpstream
> >      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.3  docsSubMgtCmFilterDownstream
> >      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.4  docsSubMgtCmFilterUpstream
> >    I think that for naming consistency, it might be better to rename
> >      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.1  docsSubMgtSubFilterDownstream
> >      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.2  docsSubMgtSubFilterUpstream
> >    into something like:
> >      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.1  docsSubMgtCmSubFilterDownstream
> >      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.2  docsSubMgtCMmubFilterUpstream
> >    so as to make it clearer (from the name/descriptor) that these 2
> >    objects exists in the docsSubMgtCmFilterTable.
> >
> > 4. I am a bit worried about the hard limit (range) of 1-255 
> for FilterGroupIndex.
> >    Is this enough forever in the future? Or would it be 
> wiser to use a larger
> >    range (and limit via MODULE-COMPLIANCE, as you already do)?
> >    I see it was larger before, and that you changed it to 
> this smaller range.
> >    So I guess you are doing this consciously.
> >
> > 5. In description clause of docsSubMgtFilterGroupIndex I see:
> >
> >        the four. Because this is the only field in this table, it is
> >        read-only, contrary to the usual SNMP custom of 
> making indices
> >        not-accessible.
> >
> >    Probably better to change SNMP into SMI.
> >
> > 6. In the Security Considerations, I think I would change 
> the 2nd para
> >    to make a positive statement, namely that you MUST 
> follow recommendations
> >    in sect 2.2.6 in order to deploy an effective filtering.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bert
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPCDN mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
>