Re: A few comments on the Midcom MIB-00

Sharon,

Thanks a lot for your comments!

--On 02.03.2004 2:04 Uhr -0500 Sharon Chisholm wrote:

> hi
>
> I started to review the Midcom MIB, but it was suggested that I wait until
> the next version. I figured I might as well send in the comments I generated
> from the first few pages of the ID:
>
> 1. In the Overview section, how do the managed objects described in the
> third paragraph relate to the solution described in the second paragraph?
> This connection has not been made.

I see your point.  We sill state more clearly in the next version
that the managed objects implement the solution described in the
second paragraph.

> 2. In section 3.1, on Terminology, it would be good to tell us what RFCXXXX
> is. Right now I have no idea what document you are referring to, but even
> after it is published, I think including the title of the RFC would greatly
> increase readability.

We use RFCXXXX in several places of this document as placeholder for the
RFC that contains the MIDCOM semantics.  RFCXXX is used consistently and
you'll find this reference resolved in the references section.

RFCXXX is currently under IESG review.  We will replace it with the correct
number, if the RFC is published before we enter WG last call.  Otherwise
we will ad a note for the RFC editor to replace RFCXXX with the appropriate
number.

> 3. In section 3.1 in Terminology, it might be worth noting that the latest
> terminology in SNMP is 'SNMP entity' and using this should clarify things
> for you. See section 2.1 in RFC3410. You could then indicate that the Midcom
> SNMP Entity acts in both the manager and agent roles, or something along
> those lines.

The problem we are resolving here is that the MIDCOM agent includes an SNMP
entity with management applications.  Using the term "agent" for this
entity cause complaints from the SNMP community, because even RFC3410
acknowledges "agent" as the term traditionally used for SNMP entities
which provides remote access to management instrumentation.  Therefore,
we decided to avoid using the term 'MIDCOM agent' and replaced it by
'MIDCOM client'.

The term 'SNMP agent' or just 'agent' is used about 25 times in the document.
I do not think the document will become easier to read if we replace all
these instances by 'SNMP entity which provides remote access to management instrumentation' as suggested by RFC 3410.  Please note that we cannot just
use 'SNMP entity, because we are discussing both roles, the manager and the
agent role.

> 4. In section 4, the first paragraph, I might suggest something more along
> the lines of "This memo describes a method of using managing Midcom in SNMP
> and also provides the necessary MIB objects to support this method."

Good point! We will use a phrase like the one you suggested as introduction
to this section.  But please forgive us if we do not use your phrasing
without modifications ;-)

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email protected]        Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.ccrle.nec.de

>
> Sharon Chisholm
> Portfolio Integration
> Nortel Networks
> Ottawa, Canada
>
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom