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

>Wilson/WG-chair(s), pls let me know if that sounds like a plan or
>if you ratehr address/answer the below first.

Going to IETF Last Call sounds like a good plan to me.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:14 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Ipcdn (E-mail)
Cc: Harrie Hazewinkel
Subject: [ipcdn] AD review of: draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-14.txt


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