Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt

[Hiroshi Tsunoda]

Hi Glenn,

Thank you for your review and valuable comments.
I am going to look at your comments in detail and
revise the draft.

Best regards,

-- tsuno

2017-06-26 9:52 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni :
> Hi Tsuno,
>Thanks for waiting. I have done one pass of the draft.
> The comments are attached.
> Please note that we probably need to do some more design
> considerations on the MIB - there are some issues that
> need to be addressed before we can arrive at a reasonably
> stable version of the MIB itself.
>
> Glenn
>
>
> On 2017/06/12 21:47, Glenn Mansfield Keeni wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tsuno,
>> Got this. I will be working on this. It is massive-
>> 40 pages. I hope to get back to you on this by the end
>> of next week.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Glenn
>> On 2017/06/07 1:22, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Glenn,
>>>
>>> I posted a new revision (-04) of MVPN-MIB document.
>>> In this revision, "Summary of MIB Module" has been rewritten.
>>> I hope this change improves the readability.
>>>
>>> URL:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04.txt
>>> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04
>>>
>>> Htmlized:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04
>>> Diff:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04
>>>
>>> Please see notes below for other changes.
>>>
>>> 2017-03-01 16:00 GMT+01:00 Hiroshi Tsunoda :
>
> 1.  Abstract:
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fixed. "Provide Edge" router is correct.
>>>
> 2.  Introduction
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fixed. "common" is correct.
>>>
> 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
 nextrevision.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have added some more explanation in this 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.
> 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.
> 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).
>>>
>>>
>>> I have rewritten "Sec.3.1 Summary of MIB Module".
>>> Eight tables can be categorized into two groups: tables forconfiguration
>>> and
>>> tables for monitoring.
>>> In this revision, the diagram representing the relationship amongtables
>>> is
>>>
>>> divided to two separated diagrams based on the roles of tables.
>>>
> MIB definitions:
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have added some references but more are required.
>>> I will keep working on this.
>>>
> 8. MOs.
> 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 

Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt

[Glenn Mansfield Keeni]

Hi Tsuno,
   Got this. I will be working on this. It is massive-
40 pages. I hope to get back to you on this by the end
of next week.

Cheers,

Glenn
On 2017/06/07 1:22, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote:

Hi Glenn,

I posted a new revision (-04) of MVPN-MIB document.
In this revision, "Summary of MIB Module" has been rewritten.
I hope this change improves the readability.

URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04.txt
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04
Diff:  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04

Please see notes below for other changes.

2017-03-01 16:00 GMT+01:00 Hiroshi Tsunoda :

1.  Abstract:
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.


Fixed. "Provide Edge" router is correct.


2.  Introduction
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.


Fixed. "common" is correct.


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.


I have added some more explanation in this 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.
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.
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).


I have rewritten "Sec.3.1 Summary of MIB Module".
Eight tables can be categorized into two groups: tables for configuration and
tables for monitoring.
In this revision, the diagram representing the relationship among tables is
divided to two separated diagrams based on the roles of tables.


MIB definitions:
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.


I have added some references but more are required.
I will keep working on this.


8. MOs.
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
   SYNTAXUnsigned32
  by
   SYNTAXGauge32


I will try to update description in the next revision.


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')


The name has been changed into mvpnGenMvrfStatusChange.
The name of the related object (mvpnGenOperStatusChangeTime) has
also been changed into mvpnGenMvrfStatusChangeTime.


8.6 mvpnGenCmcastRouteProtocol OBJECT-TYPE
   MAX-ACCESS

Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt

[Hiroshi Tsunoda]

Hi Glenn,

I posted a new revision (-04) of MVPN-MIB document.
In this revision, "Summary of MIB Module" has been rewritten.
I hope this change improves the readability.

URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04.txt
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04
Diff:  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-04

Please see notes below for other changes.

2017-03-01 16:00 GMT+01:00 Hiroshi Tsunoda :
>> 1.  Abstract:
>> 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.

Fixed. "Provide Edge" router is correct.

>> 2.  Introduction
>>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.

Fixed. "common" is correct.

>> 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.

I have added some more explanation in this 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.
>> 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.
>> 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).

I have rewritten "Sec.3.1 Summary of MIB Module".
Eight tables can be categorized into two groups: tables for configuration and
tables for monitoring.
In this revision, the diagram representing the relationship among tables is
divided to two separated diagrams based on the roles of tables.

>> MIB definitions:
>> 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.

I have added some references but more are required.
I will keep working on this.

>> 8. MOs.
>> 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
>>   SYNTAXUnsigned32
>>  by
>>   SYNTAXGauge32

I will try to update description in the next revision.

>> 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')

The name has been changed into mvpnGenMvrfStatusChange.
The name of the related object (mvpnGenOperStatusChangeTime) has
also been changed into mvpnGenMvrfStatusChangeTime.

>> 8.6 mvpnGenCmcastRouteProtocol OBJECT-TYPE
>>   MAX-ACCESSread-write
>>   ::= { mvpnGeneralEntry 4 }
>>o 

Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt

[thomas.morin]

n 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 <zzh...@juniper.net>:


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:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mach Chen
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:30 AM
To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <gl...@cysols.com>; Benoit Claise
<bcla...@cisco.com>; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com
<thomas.mo...@orange.com>
Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; ops-...@ietf.org;
Martin
Vigoureux <martin.vigour...@nokia.com>; bess@ietf.org
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:gl...@cysols.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:04 PM
To: Benoit Claise; thomas.mo...@orange.com
Cc: ops-...@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux; Mach Chen; Jeffrey (Zhaohui)


Zhang;


bess@ietf.org
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
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess




_

Ce messa

Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt

[thomas.morin]

   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 <zzh...@juniper.net>:

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:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mach Chen
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:30 AM
To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <gl...@cysols.com>; Benoit Claise
<bcla...@cisco.com>; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com
<thomas.mo...@orange.com>
Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; ops-...@ietf.org; Martin
Vigoureux <martin.vigour...@nokia.com>; bess@ietf.org
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:gl...@cysols.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:04 PM
To: Benoit Claise; thomas.mo...@orange.com
Cc: ops-...@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux; Mach Chen; Jeffrey (Zhaohui)

Zhang;

bess@ietf.org
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
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
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
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt

[Hiroshi Tsunoda]

 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 <zzh...@juniper.net>:
> 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:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mach Chen
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:30 AM
>> To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <gl...@cysols.com>; Benoit Claise
>> <bcla...@cisco.com>; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com
>> <thomas.mo...@orange.com>
>> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; ops-...@ietf.org; Martin
>> Vigoureux <martin.vigour...@nokia.com>; bess@ietf.org
>> 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:gl...@cysols.com]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:04 PM
>> > To: Benoit Claise; thomas.mo...@orange.com
>> > Cc: ops-...@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux; Mach Chen; Jeffrey (Zhaohui)
>> Zhang;
>> > bess@ietf.org
>> > 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
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt

[Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang]

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:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mach Chen
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:30 AM
> To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <gl...@cysols.com>; Benoit Claise
> <bcla...@cisco.com>; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com
> <thomas.mo...@orange.com>
> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; ops-...@ietf.org; Martin
> Vigoureux <martin.vigour...@nokia.com>; bess@ietf.org
> 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:gl...@cysols.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:04 PM
> > To: Benoit Claise; thomas.mo...@orange.com
> > Cc: ops-...@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux; Mach Chen; Jeffrey (Zhaohui)
> Zhang;
> > bess@ietf.org
> > 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
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt

[Mach Chen]

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:gl...@cysols.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:04 PM
> To: Benoit Claise; thomas.mo...@orange.com
> Cc: ops-...@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux; Mach Chen; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang;
> bess@ietf.org
> 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
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt

[Mach Chen]

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for your review and the comments!

To the authors:

Please address the comments asap, once the comments addressed, we could send 
the draft to IESG for publication.

Thanks,
Mach


> -Original Message-
> From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni [mailto:gl...@cysols.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:04 PM
> To: Benoit Claise; thomas.mo...@orange.com
> Cc: ops-...@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux; Mach Chen; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang;
> bess@ietf.org
> 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
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt

[Glenn Mansfield Keeni]

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

Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt
-

This is a preliminary review. Once the following points are 
taken care of, we can get down to a detailed in-depth review. 

1.  Abstract:
1.1 Please give the full expansion of MPLS/BGP
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.

2.  Introduction
2.1 PE - appears first time. Please give the full expansion.
2.2 Is the protocol for "exchanging VPN multicast" or 
"exchanging VPN multicast states"? Please fix appropriately.
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. 
Are the objects "generic" to PIM-MVPN and BGP-MVPN or "common" 
to  PIM-MVPN and BGP-MVPN ? Please change accordingly.
2.4 Please give the full expansion of the abbreviations occuring 
for the first time in the document. (MPLS, L3VPN). 
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
  
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. 


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. 

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).
 

MIB definitions:
4. MIB syntax checking:
   smilint -s -e -l 5 mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB 2>MCAST-VPN-MIB.txt

   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:289: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named number 
`highest-pe-address' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:290: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named number 
`c-root-group-hashing' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:291: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named number 
`ucast-umh-route' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:306: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named number 
`sender-receiver' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:307: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named number 
`receiver-only' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:308: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named number 
`sender-only' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:369: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named number 
`rpt-spt' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:370: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named number 
`spt-only' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:412: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row 
`mvpnPmsiConfigEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 398 subidentifier(s)
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:534: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row 
`mvpnSpmsiConfigEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 430 subidentifier(s)
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:649: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row 
`mvpnIpmsiEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 430 subidentifier(s)
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:741: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row 
`mvpnInterAsIpmsiEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 174 subidentifier(s)
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:810: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row 
`mvpnSpmsiEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 687 subidentifier(s)
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:1016: [4] {group-membership} warning: notification 
`mvpnMvrfChange' must be contained in at least one conformance group
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:1127: [5] {group-unref} warning: current group 
`mvpnPmsiConfigGroup' is not referenced in this module
   mibs/MCAST-VPN-MIB:1211: [5] {group-unref} warning: current group 
`mvpnOptionalGroup' is not referenced in this