Dear Glenn,
Thank you for your comments and for waiting for the update.
I posted a new revision (-11) as follows.
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11.txt
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11
Please see the responses for your comments in the followings.
2017-09-02 9:47 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[email protected]>:
> 1. Page-6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: DESCRIPTION
> 1.1 It will be good to give a reference (RFCNNNN) for
> noTunnelInfo (0) : no tunnel information present
> That will make it consistent with the other items.
> This change will require adding RFCNNNN to the REFERENCE clause.
Fixed.
> 1.2 pimBidir (5) : BIDIR-PIM Tree [RFC5015]
> RFC5015 needs to be added to the Reference section
RFC5015 added to the Reference section.
> 3. Page-7,8: says
> " A L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType object of value
> noTunnelInfo(0) indicates that the corresponding
> Provider Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel
> attribute does not have a Tunnel Identifier."
> It may be better to align the wording with RFC6514 (Page 11)
> ' When the Tunnel Type is set to "No tunnel information
> present", the PMSI Tunnel attribute carries no tunnel
> information (no Tunnel Identifier).'
Fixed. Thank you for your advice.
> 4. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: DESCRIPTION:
> E: Extension flag [RFC7902]
> RFC7902 needs to be added to the Reference section
Fixed. RFC7902 is now in the Reference section.
> 5. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: REFERENCE
> "RFC6514, Section 5
> RFC7902
> "
> It will be nice to have a section pointer for RFC7902 too.
> (User-friendly and consistency).
> Please check the same for all the REFERENCE clause pointers
Added a section point for Sec.3 of RFC7902.
> 6. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeAddlFlags: DESCRIPTION
> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of
> this object is zero."
> This is actually a 48-bit string. What would be the
> representation of "zero" above be? Will it be a string of
> length 0, a string containing a single ascii character "0"
> 6 ascii "0"s, 48 '0' bits ?
>
> 7. Page-14: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeLabel: DESCRIPTION:
> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of
> this object is zero that indicates the absence of MPLS
> Label."
> Once again. "zero" above is imprecise.
In the current revision, these parts are revised as follows.
When the P-tunnel does not have a correspondent PMSI tunnel
attribute, the value of this object will be 0.
> 8. Compliance:
> It would be good to design the compliance module as follows:
> l2L3VpnMcastCoreCompliance:
> MANDATORY-GROUPS {
> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup
> }
> l2L3VpnMcastFullCompliance:
> MANDATORY-GROUPS {
> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup
> l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup
> }
Fixed along with your comments. Thank you.
> General:
> 10 Page-2 Section-1
> 10.1 In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPN)
> In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) ?
Fixed.
> 10.2 Throughout this document, we will use the term
> "L2L3VpnMCast" to mean BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPN that support
> multicast.
>
> Throughout this document, we will use the term
> "L2L3VpnMCast network" to mean a network that comprises of
> BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPNs and supports multicast.
Fixed. Now, the term "L2L3VpnMCast network" is used throughout the document.
> 10.3 Page-4 Section-3 bullet 2
> Please review the paragraph for readability.
Revised the paragraph in order to improve readability.
> 10.4 It will be good to avoid page-breaks within quoted clauses.
> example: Page-6 L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: REFERENCE
Thank you for your comments. I adjusted the page-breaks along with this comment.
Thanks again.
-- tsuno
2017-09-02 9:47 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[email protected]>:
> Dear Tsuno,
>
> Thanks for the revised draft. I have reviewed the draft.
> Some issues remain. These are listed below
> Please consider the issues/comments and update the draft.
>
> Glenn
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------+
>
> 1. Page-6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: DESCRIPTION
> 1.1 It will be good to give a reference (RFCNNNN) for
> noTunnelInfo (0) : no tunnel information present
> That will make it consistent with the other items.
> This change will require adding RFCNNNN to the REFERENCE clause.
> 1.2 pimBidir (5) : BIDIR-PIM Tree [RFC5015]
> RFC5015 needs to be added to the Reference section
>
> 2. Page-6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: SYNTAX
> The rewritten SYNTAX clause without the repetitions looks better.
> Thanks.
>
> 3. Page-7,8: says
> " A L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType object of value
> noTunnelInfo(0) indicates that the corresponding
> Provider Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel
> attribute does not have a Tunnel Identifier."
> It may be better to align the wording with RFC6514 (Page 11)
> ' When the Tunnel Type is set to "No tunnel information
> present", the PMSI Tunnel attribute carries no tunnel
> information (no Tunnel Identifier).'
>
> 4. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: DESCRIPTION:
> E: Extension flag [RFC7902]
> RFC7902 needs to be added to the Reference section
>
> 5. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: REFERENCE
> "RFC6514, Section 5
> RFC7902
> "
> It will be nice to have a section pointer for RFC7902 too.
> (User-friendly and consistency).
> Please check the same for all the REFERENCE clause pointers
> 6. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeAddlFlags: DESCRIPTION
> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of
> this object is zero."
> This is actually a 48-bit string. What would be the
> representation of "zero" above be? Will it be a string of
> length 0, a string containing a single ascii character "0"
> 6 ascii "0"s, 48 '0' bits ?
>
> 7. Page-14: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeLabel: DESCRIPTION:
> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of
> this object is zero that indicates the absence of MPLS
> Label."
> Once again. "zero" above is imprecise.
>
> 8. Compliance:
> It would be good to design the compliance module as follows:
> l2L3VpnMcastCoreCompliance:
> MANDATORY-GROUPS {
> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup
> }
> l2L3VpnMcastFullCompliance:
> MANDATORY-GROUPS {
> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup
> l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup
> }
>
>
> General:
> 10 Page-2 Section-1
> 10.1 In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPN)
> In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) ?
>
> 10.2 Throughout this document, we will use the term
> "L2L3VpnMCast" to mean BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPN that support
> multicast.
>
> Throughout this document, we will use the term
> "L2L3VpnMCast network" to mean a network that comprises of
> BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPNs and supports multicast.
>
> 10.3 Page-4 Section-3 bullet 2
> Please review the paragraph for readability.
>
> 10.4 It will be good to avoid page-breaks within quoted clauses.
> example: Page-6 L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: REFERENCE
>
>
>
>
> On 2017/08/28 3:27, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote:
>>
>> Dear Glenn,
>>
>> Thank you for your comments and for waiting for the update.
>> I posted a new revision (-10) as follows.
>>
>> URL:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10.txt
>> Htmlized:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10
>> Htmlized:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10
>> Diff:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10
>>
>> In the new revision, the following changes are made.
>> - Updated the description of following TC and objects
>> in order to clarify the role of this MIB and to improve
>> the readability
>> -- L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId
>> -- l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable
>> - Removed some redundant expressions
>> - Updated compliance statements
>>
>> Please see the responses for your comments
>> in the followings.
>>
>> 2017-07-09 14:11 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>> L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB:112: [5] {type-without-format} warning: type
>>> `L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId' has no format specification
>>> This may be avoided by specifying a format in which the
>>> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId should be printed.
>>> Is there a preferred format? How will this be printed?
>>> One continuous octet string?
>>
>>
>> The size and format of TunnelID depends on Tunnel Type.
>> and no preferred format is exist as of now.
>> Therefore, I have decided to not give format specification
>> to L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId.
>>
>>> A. The l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable needs all of the following
>>> four MOs as index for its rows
>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags,
>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType,
>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeLabel,
>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
>>> The l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId by itself is inadequate? If yes
>>> please explain it to me. Or point to the text that contains the
>>> explanation.
>>> I have been unable to confirm the above from the draft - that is very
>>> likely due to my lack of understanding of the l2L3VpnMcast technology.
>>
>>
>> According to Sec. 7.4.1.1 of RFC6513,
>> P-tunnel is identified by its type and id.
>> Thus, in the latest revision, the following two objects are used as
>> index of the table.
>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType,
>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> -- tsuno
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BESS mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
