Hi Thomas, Glenn Sorry, this is my fault.
I think Glenn is waiting for the new revision because the last revision posted in March does not have essential improvement. I am going to make a major update MVPN-MIB document in this weekend and will post the new revision at the beginning of the next week hopefully. Thanks in advance, -- tsuno 2017-06-01 11:16 GMT+02:00 <[email protected]>: > Hi Glenn, > > Thanks for the reviews on the other mvpn-related MIB > (draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-03). > > We would like to have an idea of what is the progress around this draft. > Do you know when you could do a review of the revision posted in early March > ? > > Thanks in advance, > > -Thomas > > > 2017-03-01, Hiroshi Tsunoda: > >> Dear Glenn, >> >> I posted a new revision MVPN-MIB document. >> This revision addresses mainly editorial parts of your comments. >> Although so many TBDs have remained, I hope that this becomes >> the re-starting point to finalize this document. >> >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-03.txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib/ >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-03 >> Diff: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-03 >> >> Please see some notes below. >> >>> 1. Abstract: >>> 1.1 Please give the full expansion of MPLS/BGP >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 1.2 "In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or >>> monitor Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs (MVPN) on a router." >>> Is this for any router or, a "Provider Edge" router ? >>> Please fix accordingly. >> >> >> This point will be fixed in the next revision. >> >>> 2. Introduction >>> 2.1 PE - appears first time. Please give the full expansion. >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 2.2 Is the protocol for "exchanging VPN multicast" or >>> "exchanging VPN multicast states"? Please fix appropriately. >> >> >> "exchanging VPN multicast states" is correct. Fixed. >> >>> 2.3 The expression "standard MIB" in the following is confusing: >>> "This document defines a standard MIB for MVPN-specific >>> objects that are generic to both PIM-MVPN and BGP-MVPN." >>> Is there any special significance in the "standard" above? >>> If no, then please drop the word. >> >> >> Fixed. I dropped the word "standard". >> >>> Are the objects "generic" to PIM-MVPN and BGP-MVPN or "common" >>> to PIM-MVPN and BGP-MVPN ? Please change accordingly. >> >> >> This point will be fixed in the next revision. >> >>> 2.4 Please give the full expansion of the abbreviations occuring >>> for the first time in the document. (MPLS, L3VPN). >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 2.5 The terminology section is a bit terse. Explaining the terms >>> that are used, with reference to the protocol documents will >>> improve readability. >>> e.g. >>> - MVPN, PE, PMSI/tunnels, >>> - C-multicast routing exchange protocol (PIM or BGP), >>> C-multicast states >>> - I-PMSI, S-PMSI, provider tunnels >> >> >> Partially fixed. I will give more detailed explanation in the next >> revision. >> >>> 3. MVPN MIB. >>> This gives the overview of the MVPN MIB. >>> The MIB module aims to provide "configuring and/or monitoring" >>> >>> 3.1 In >>> "This MIB enables configuring and/or monitoring of MVPNs on PE >>> devices: the whole multicast VPN machinery....." >>> "the whole multicast VPN machinery" is very difficult to define. >>> Please use precisely defined terms. >>> 3.2 In "To represent them,...." >>> "them" seems ambiguous, please clarify. >> >> >> These points will be fixed in the next revision. >> >>> 3.3 The diagram needs some explanation. >>> What do the boxes represent? Tables ? The labels are meant to be >>> table names ? The table names do not match the labels. >>> What do the arrows signify? Please explain. >> >> >> Partially fixed. Each box represents a table defined in this document. >> I fixed the labels in the boxes. >> >> More detailed explanation will be added in the next revision. >> >>> 3.4 The short explanation of the tables could be augmented with some >>> information on what they represent and an idea of how they will >>> be used. ( RFC 4382 provides a good example). >> >> >> These points will be fixed in the next revision. >> >>> MIB definitions: >>> 4. MIB syntax checking: >>> smilint -s -e -l 5 mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB 2>MCAST-VPN-MIB.txt >> >> >> I fixed the most of the warnings except for "index-exceeds-too-large". >> I think the restructuring of the MIB module may be required in order to >> fix "index-exceeds-too-large". Thus, I will need more time to work on >> this. >> >>> 5. IMPORTS clause >>> MIB modules from which items are imported must be cited and included >>> in the normative references. >>> The conventional style is >>> mplsStdMIB >>> FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- [RFC3811] >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 6. Please update the MODULE-IDENTITY. (There are no syntantic errors.) >>> 6.1 'ORGANIZATION "IETF Layer-3 Virtual Private >>> Networks Working Group."' >>> needs to be fixed to >>> 'ORGANIZATION "IETF BESS Working Group."' >>> or something more appropriate. >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 6.2 CONTACT-INFO >>> Following the conventions (including indentation style) will >>> improve the readability. (e.g. RFC4382, RFC5132). >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 6.2 REVISION clause: follow the convention of RFC4131 sec 4.5 >>> REVISION "200212132358Z" -- December 13, 2002 >>> DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published as RFC yyyy." >>> -- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note: >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 6.3 OID assignment: follow the convention of RFC4131 sec 4.5 >>> replace >>> ::= { experimental 99 } -- number to be assigned >>> by >>> ::= { <subtree> XXX } >>> -- RFC Ed.: replace XXX with IANA-assigned number & remove this note >>> <subtree> will be the subtree under which the module will be >>> registered. >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 7. Wherever possible, please provide references for objects used in the >>> MIB. The references will point to specific sections/sub-sections of >>> RFCs defining the protocol for which the MIB is being designed. >> >> >> This will be addressed in the next revision. >> >>> 8. MOs. >>> 8.1 Scalar Objects: The name mvpnMvrfNumber may be misleading. >>> I would recommend the usage of the same naming style >>> as RFC 4382 e.g. mvpnMvrfs, mvpnV4Mvrfs, mvpnV6Mvrfs (instead of >>> mvpnMvrfNumber, mvpnMvrfNumberV4, mvpnMvrfNumberV6, ...) unless >>> there is some good reason to not do it. >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 8.2 mvpnMvrfNumber OBJECT-TYPE >>> SYNTAX Unsigned32 >>> DESCRIPTION >>> "The total number of MVRFs that are present on this device, >>> whether for IPv4, IPv6, or mLDP C-Multicast." >>> o Please make the description precise. E.g. if it is the sum of >>> IPv4 MVRFs, IPv6 MVRFs and mLDP C-Multicast MVRFs state it >>> explicitly. >>> o The expression "present on this device" is used. >>> Does "present" imply "configured" MVRFs or "active" MVRFs. >>> If it is number of active MVRFs then one would expect that >>> the number will vary (increase or decrease). If that is the >>> case: >>> replace >>> SYNTAX Unsigned32 >>> by >>> SYNTAX Gauge32 >> >> >> Partially fixed. I replaced Unsigned32 by Gauge32. >> I will try to update description in the next revision. >> >>> 8.3 For all the following scalars: >>> mvpnMvrfNumber >>> mvpnMvrfNumberV4 >>> mvpnMvrfNumberV6 >>> mvpnMvrfNumberPimV4 >>> mvpnMvrfNumberPimV6 >>> mvpnMvrfNumberBgpV4 >>> mvpnMvrfNumberBgpV6 >>> mvpnMvrfNumberMldp >>> same comments as 8.2. >> >> >> Name and SYNTAX of these scalars were fixed. >> Description will be fixed in the next revision. >> >>> 8.4 mvpnGenAddressFamily OBJECT-TYPE >>> DESCRIPTION >>> "The Address Fammily that this entry is for" >>> s/Fammily/Family/ >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 8.5 mvpnGenOperStatusChange OBJECT-TYPE >>> SYNTAX INTEGER { createdMvrf(1), >>> deletedMvrf(2), >>> modifiedMvrfIpmsiConfig(3), >>> modifiedMvrfSpmsiConfig(4) >>> } >>> DESCRIPTION >>> "This object describes the last operational change that >>> o The name does not look right. From the SYNTAX and the DESCRIPTION >>> it appears that this is about config or MVRF change rather than >>> "OperStatus" change. Please check and fix. >>> o Please confirm that the values in the row itself will not be >>> changed >>> after creation. ( you do not have a 'modifiedMvrfConfig') >> >> >> This will be addressed in the next revision. >> >>> 8.6 mvpnGenCmcastRouteProtocol OBJECT-TYPE >>> MAX-ACCESS read-write >>> ::= { mvpnGeneralEntry 4 } >>> o You cannot have MAX-ACCESS read-write for a row that may be >>> dynamically created. >>> Replace >>> MAX-ACCESS read-write >>> by >>> MAX-ACCESS read-create >>> if you want to dynamically change that value, otherwise, >>> MAX-ACCESS read-only >>> will suffice. >> >> >> This will be addressed in the next revision. >> >>> 8.8 mvpnGenIpmsiConfig OBJECT-TYPE >>> DESCRIPTION >>> "This points to a row in mvpnPmsiConfigTable, >>> for I-PMSI configuration." >>> o Please specify the expected behaviour when it is not an I-PMSI >>> 8.9 mvpnGenInterAsPmsiConfig >>> o same comment as above >> >> >> These will be addressed in the next revision. >> >>> 8.10 mvpnGenRowStatus >>> mvpnGenRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE >>> SYNTAX RowStatus >>> DESCRIPTION >>> "This is used to create or delete a row in this table." >>> o The description is inadequate for an implementor (and >>> others too). >>> o You must have a mvpnGenRowStorageType or the DESCRIPTION of >>> mvpnGenRowStatus must indicate what will happen to the row >>> after an agent restart >> >> >> I will try to address this comment in the next revision. >> >>> 9. Similar comments (8.1 ~ 8.10) for the remaining tables in the MIB >>> Particularly 8.10 for the RowStatus type objects >>> mvpnGenRowStatus >>> mvpnPmsiConfigRowStatus >>> mvpnSpmsiConfigRowStatus. >>> Please check and fix. >> >> >> I will try to address this comment in the next revision. >> >>> 10. mvpnMvrfChange NOTIFICATION-TYPE >>> OBJECTS { >>> mvpnGenOperStatusChange >>> } >>> ::= { mvpnNotifications 2 } >>> >>> o should be { mvpnNotifications 1 } >>> o Include the MOs that the administrator/manager may want to >>> see in OBJECTS. >> >> >> The first comment is addressed, the second one is TBD. >> >>> 11. The Security Considerations section does not follow the Security >>> Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules >>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security. >> >> >> I rewrite this part according to the guideline described in RFC4181 >> Sec.3.4. >> However, there are some TBDs in this part that should be updated according >> to the update in the main body of MIB module. >> >> >>> 12. COMPLIANCE. >>> 12.1 You seem to mandate MAX-ACCESS read-write/read-create for >>> compliance. Is this intended? Configuration capability MUST be >>> supported? Please note that sec 2. MVPN MIB says >>> "This MIB enables configuring and/or monitoring of MVPNs ..." >>> The current compliance requirement contradicts the above claim. >>> Please check and fix. >>> >>> It is general and sound practice to allow for MAX-ACCESS >>> read-only compliance. Some implementations may support >>> monitoring but not configuration. >>> Please check and fix. >> >> >> This will be addressed in the next reivision. >> >>> General nits: >>> 13.1 Page-1 s/an portion/a portion/ >>> 13.2 Page-1 s/we'll/we will/ >>> 13.3 Page-5 s/ mvpnSpmsiTable\/Etnry/mvpnSpmsiTable/ >>> I think that the "/Entry" was removed from similar titles >>> in the earlier draft as adivised by the document shepherd. >>> This one should be removed too. >>> 13.4 ID-nits: >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 14. There is another WIP L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB in the WG. >>> Is there a good reason for not merging the 2 documents? >>> Some clarification or pointers will be helpful. >> >> >> In my understanding, L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB is designed for both >> L2VPN multicast and L3VPN multicast, but MVPN-MIB is designed >> only for L3VPN multicast. I think this is a reason why there are >> two separate documents. >> >> -- tsuno >> >> 2016-06-07 0:44 GMT+09:00 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Mach, Glenn, >>> >>> I've addressed most of the comments from Glenn on the l2l3 mvpn mib and >>> had started on addressing some comments on mvpn mib, but I've been side >>> tracked and am making very slow progress. >>> >>> I will try to pick it up again soon. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> Jeffrey >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mach Chen >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:30 AM >>>> To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[email protected]>; Benoit Claise >>>> <[email protected]>; EXT - [email protected] >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >>>> Martin >>>> Vigoureux <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt >>>> >>>> Hi authors, >>>> >>>> I saw the discussions between you and Glenn about l2l3 mvpn mib and you >>>> have already submitted the 02 version to address the comments. >>>> >>>> But I did not see any response to the below mvpn mib review and >>>> comments(maybe I missed something), given that we have plan to progress >>>> the mvpn-mib and l2l3-mvpn-mib documents together, what's your plan >>>> about >>>> this document? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Mach >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:04 PM >>>>> To: Benoit Claise; [email protected] >>>>> Cc: [email protected]; Martin Vigoureux; Mach Chen; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) >>>> >>>> Zhang; >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> Subject: MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> I have been asked to do a MIB Doctors review of >>>>> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt. >>>>> >>>>> The comments are attached. >>>>> You will note that this is preliminary review. There are some generic >>>> >>>> comments >>>>> >>>>> which apply to all the scalars and tables. Please take care of those >>>>> and >>>> >>>> then we >>>>> >>>>> will get onto the next phase. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Glenn >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> BESS mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BESS mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
