RE: Item 1) Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-snmpconf-diffpolicy-06.t xt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:07:17 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.snmpconf |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550213BDD3@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> |
Harry, you were involved (as one of the MIB doctors) when we crteated the mib-guidelines. The below are all as a result of what we as collective set of MIB doctors thought to be good. One of my reasons to get the mib-guidelines was so that it can be used by MIB doctors during their review, and so that we get a CONSISTENT (or as consistent as possible) review for all MIB documents, and not a review that is heavily biased based on which MIB Doctor does the actual review. W.r.t. the IMPORT thing.... it is a MAY, but most MIB docotrs prefer the explicit IMPORT. It makes it clearer for everyone. Now..... as I indicated, it seems that you do not need to IMPORT any of those things for the MODULE-COMPLIACE. You can just mention (in the DESCRIPTION clause) that one needs to implement DIFFSERV-MIB according to diffServMIBFullCompliance. Hope this explains Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Harrie Hazewinkel [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: dinsdag 29 juli 2003 20:23 > To: [email protected] > Cc: Harrie Hazewinkel > Subject: Item 1) Re: AD review of: > draft-ietf-snmpconf-diffpolicy-06.txt > > > HI all, > > I am working on the AD review comments. In the meantime > I would like feedback on the following, item 1. > > On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 04:49 PM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > > > Here is my AD review: > > > > 1. First, a SMICng compiler (With strict checking) reveals: > > ONly I do not have a version of SMICng to compile it, but libsmi > is not mentioning problems with the arguments suggested in > draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt. > > > > > W: f(diffpol.mi2), (20,4) MODULE-IDENTITY diffServConfigMib should > > have at least one REVISION clause > > With respect to the REVISION clause, RFC 25780 says: > RevisionPart ::= > Revisions > | empty > Revisions ::= > Revision > | Revisions Revision > Revision ::= > "REVISION" value(Update ExtUTCTime) > "DESCRIPTION" Text > > Am I correct if I interpret this as a REVISION-clause is NOT > required?? > This is in contradiction with > draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt. > > But I will just add: > REVISION "20030730000Z" -- 30 July 2003 > DESCRIPTION > "Initial version publicsh as RFC XXX" -- to be > assigned by the > RFC editor > > > W: f(diffpol.mi2), (68,4) Row "diffServConfigEntry" has indexing > > that may create variables with more than 128 sub-ids > > - bw: I think this is a bug in SMICng, cause your limit of 116 > > seems to > > be limiting it to exact 128 sub-ids > > I agree. > > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (204,12) Item > "ifCounterDiscontinuityGroup" should > > be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (207,15) module "DIFFSERV-MIB" may be specified > > only once > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (209,12) Item "diffServMIBDataPathGroup" should > > be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (209,38) Item "diffServMIBClfrGroup" should > > be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (210,12) Item > "diffServMIBClfrElementGroup" should > > be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (210,41) Item "diffServMIBMultiFieldClfrGroup" > > should be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (211,12) Item "diffServMIBActionGroup" > should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (211,36) Item > "diffServMIBAlgDropGroup" should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (212,12) Item "diffServMIBQGroup" should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (212,31) Item > "diffServMIBSchedulerGroup" should > > be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (213,12) Item > "diffServMIBMaxRateGroup" should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (213,37) Item > "diffServMIBMinRateGroup" should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (214,12) Item > "diffServMIBCounterGroup" should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (217,14) Item "diffServMIBMeterGroup" > should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (222,14) Item > "diffServMIBTBParamGroup" should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (227,14) Item "diffServMIBDscpMarkActGroup" > > should be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (232,14) Item > "diffServMIBRandomDropGroup" should > > be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (237,15) Item "diffServDataPathStatus" > should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (243,15) Item "diffServClfrStatus" should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (249,15) Item > "diffServClfrElementStatus" should > > be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (255,15) Item "diffServMultiFieldClfrAddrType" > > should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (261,15) Item "diffServMultiFieldClfrDstAddr" > > should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (267,15) Item "diffServAlgDropStatus" > should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (273,15) Item > "diffServRandomDropStatus" should > > be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (279,15) Item "diffServQStatus" should > be IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (285,15) Item > "diffServSchedulerStatus" should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (291,15) Item "diffServMinRateStatus" > should be > > IMPORTed > > E: f(diffpol.mi2), (297,15) Item "diffServMaxRateStatus" > should be > > IMPORTed > > I am not sure about this, but are those IMPORTs not done > 'implicit' by the MODULE clause of the compliance?? > > At least for the defined objects RFC 2580 says in section 5.4.3 > By definition, each object specified in an OBJECT clause follows a > MODULE clause which names the information module in which > that object > is defined. Therefore, the use of an IMPORTS statement, > to specify > from where such objects are imported, is redundant and is not > required in an information module. > > OK, it does not specify this for the MANDATROY-GROUPS or GROUP clause, > but I assumed the same as in the OBJECT clause. In that case > I believe > this > is a bug in the SMICng compiler. > > Am I correct with this assumption?? > > > regards, > > Harrie >