Subject: Re: [lisp] WGLC for draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:59:03 +0200

Hi,

There are a few issues that need to be corrected and clarified before
submitting this document to the IESG. There may be more, but I did not
have the time to perform a full MIB Doctor review, this is what I found
at a first pass reading of the document.

- Runing smilint indicates a number of problems - most derive from the
fact that indices of many table are of the SYNTAX of Integer32 with no
range restriction
- LispAddressType TC is defined as a four-tuple with several variants -
how can it have 0 as its lower size? 
- Having a REFERENCE clause that says "[LISP]" is not useful. People may
use the MIB module but not the RFC, and even if they know what the
reference is just one high level reference is useless. To be useful to
implementers REFERENCE clauses of specific objects must point to the
exact paragraphs that define the origin of the MIB definition in the
LIPS RFC 
- Some of the Integer objects have obviously a range, but this is not
specified - for example lispMapCacheLocatorRlocPriority or
lispMapCacheLocatorRlocWeight
- The indexation of lispIidToVrfTable seems broken - if the value of
VPNIdOrZero is zero because a VPN ID could not be determined, how are to
rows in such situation distinguished? 
- There is no discontinuity indicator for the (many) counter objects in
the MIB module. See section 4.6.1.2 in RFC 4181 for some advice on this
issue
- IANA Considerations - IANA must allocate a branch under mib-2 for this
MIB module (marked xxx in the MIB module)

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Sander Steffann
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:36 PM
> To: Terry Manderson
> Cc: LISP mailing list list
> Subject: Re: [lisp] WGLC for draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > I have not seen any review nor comments made of this document in
this
> > WGLC by anyone in the WG.
> >
> > I am extending this last call by a further 14 days.
> >
> > The extended LC will end on Tuesday the 11th of September. Please
WG,
> > cast your eyes over this document, it cannot progress without
adequate
> review!
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with the document. It would have been nice
if
> notifications had been defined, for example for (certain) changes to
> lispEidRegistrationTable, lispMappingDatabaseTable and
> lispMappingDatabaseLocatorTable. But everything that is defined in the
> document looks good!
> 
> Thanks,
> Sander
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Gregg Schudel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:38:21 -0700

Thank you for the comments Dan

> fact that indices of many table are of the SYNTAX of Integer32 with no

thanks - fixed. (added ranges)

> how can it have 0 as its lower size?

thanks - fixed.

> exact paragraphs that define the origin of the MIB definition in the

thanks - fixed. added pertinent references w/ sections.

> lispMapCacheLocatorRlocWeight

thanks - fixed. added ranges.

> rows in such situation distinguished?

thanks - fixed. added index.

> the MIB module. See section 4.6.1.2 in RFC 4181 for some advice on this

thanks - fixing...

> MIB module (marked xxx in the MIB module)

thanks - yes, we had this on the "to do" list. will get this going.

> Dan

cheers
gregg

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
  .:|:.:|:.  | gregg schudel (ccie#9591) LISP technical mrkting engr
    cisco    | mobile: +1 571 332 2222   email: [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
cisco corporate legal statement:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:43:29 -0700

I'm now comfortable with the WG review on this document. This closes the
WGLC, IESG submission write-up will commence soon.

Cheers
Terry

On 29/08/12 9:29 AM, "Terry Manderson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> WG,
> 
> I have not seen any review nor comments made of this document in this WGLC
> by anyone in the WG.
> 
> The extended LC will end on Tuesday the 11th of September. Please WG, cast
> your eyes over this document, it cannot progress without adequate review!
> 
> Cheers
> Terry
> 
> 
> 
> On 13/08/12 4:09 PM, "Terry Manderson" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> As requested in Vancouver, the authors of draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05 have
>> requested a work group last call.
>> 
>> Here starts a 14 day last call for this document, the last call will end on
>> Tuesday the 28th August, 2012.
>> 
>> You will find its text here:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05
>> 
>> Please review this WG item and provide any last comments.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Terry