[ipcdn] AD re-review: draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Wed, 17 August 2005 14:51 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5PGi-00027I-6c; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:51:52 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5PGf-0001ww-QU for ipcdn@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:51:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05443 for <ipcdn@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:51:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.222.163]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5PqE-0001kX-Hi for ipcdn@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:28:35 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7HEpQhA016376; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:51:27 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <QJWZ2A3G>; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:51:25 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15507D3235B@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "Eduardo Cardona (E-mail)" <e.cardona@CableLabs.com>, david.raftus@terayon.com
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:51:16 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 71f780ffdd80c541d3e75aa5f2710d3d
Cc: "Ipcdn (E-mail)" <ipcdn@ietf.org>
Subject: [ipcdn] AD re-review: draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txt
X-BeenThere: ipcdn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP over Cable Data Network <ipcdn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipcdn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipcdn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipcdn-bounces@ietf.org
Summary: - No showstoppers as far as I can see now. - We can do an IETF Last Call now and you consider the below as initial IETF Last Call comments. So after IETF Last Call completes you would address the below plus whatever comes up from IETF Last Call and only after that will I put it on IESG agenda. - Or you can go do a quick new rev to address the below. If you can do so in the next few days, then I prefer that. Here are my review comments: - In the MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement(s) I see OBJECT docsIfUpChannelStatus SYNTAX RowStatus {active(1), notReady(3)} WRITE-SYNTAX RowStatus {createAndWait(5), destroy(6)} That seems weird. I think that active(1) also needs to be included in the WRITE-SYNTAX, otherwise, when somebody does a createAndWait, and that results in a notRady, how are you then ever going to get the row in active(1) if you cannot write that value? But then I see in the DESCRIPTION clause of docsIfUpChannelStatus that one should not (never?) set a row to active. I do see that notInservice is possible in the description clause. So I am confused. Are you also aware that agents may remove non-active rows after some implementation-specific time? See RFC2579 for details. Just want to be sure you have specified things as intended. I find them strange.... but who is me. It has to do with the "complexity" of your cloning mechanism that both Randy and I have brought up. I do not have a quick alternative available. Would take serious time I guess, cause I would need to better understand your requirements and constraints first. I guess if the WG is OK with whatyou have then we can probably leave it. The WG members (at least some of them I assume) will have to implement it! - SYNTAX check with SMICng: W: f(rfmibv2.mi2), (1488,21) Item "docsIfCmStatusCode" should have SIZE specified I understand this was already the case in RFC2670. If we can add a size such that a compliant implementation of RFC2670 is still compliant, then I suggest we do so. If not, then leave as is. I see that you had a SIZE (0..16) in revision 12, and then Randy commented that that did not fit with the DESCRIPTION clause: DESCRIPTION "Status code for this Cable Modem as defined in the OSSI Specification. The status code consists of a single character indicating error groups, followed by a two- or three-digit number indicating the status condition, followed by a decimal." Which is true. In fact, I am not sure what the content is. Is it - either 3 octets (1 for error group, 2 for a number, no decimal) or 4 octets (1 for error group, 2 for a number, 1 decimal) - either 3 octets (1 for error group, 1 for number, 1 decimal) or 4 octets (1 for error group, 2 for a number, 1 decimal) - either 4 octets (1 for error group, 2 for number, 1 decimal) or 5 octets (1 for error group, 3 for a number, 1 decimal) See why we wonder?? And in any case, the way I read it, MIN length would be 3 or 4 and the MAX length 4 or 5, depending on the above interpretations. I see that Eduardo posted a response, and no-one reacted (at least I cannot quickly find it). So ?? W: f(rfmibv2.mi2), (5036,4) OBJECT-GROUP "docsIfObsoleteGroup" is not used in a MODULE-COMPLIANCE in current module I understand this was already the case in RFC2670. So I am OK to leave it as is. I had suggested (in y review of Dec 2004) Might be good to add a ASN.1 comment about it so we know it has existed for a long time. Seems that was not done. Eduardo responded: >> will add after : -- conditionally mandatory group GROUP docsIfCmtsGroup The group reference, -- obsolete group -- RFC 2670 already had a obsolete group, even though RFC2670 -- was the first version of this MIB Module GROUP docsIfObsoleteGroup DESCRIPTION "This group contains obsolete objects." But I cannot fond any of that addition? Am I missing something? - There was discussion/question Bert commented: 5. ./DOCS-IF-MIB:2400 [3] {range-added} size `(0..512)' added to type used in `docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData' Probably OK. Can you add some text to explain why this is OK? Eduardo answered: >>(*) I do not have other explanation than "enough" room, probably for future enhancements (?) Current DOCSIS MAC may constrain to 256 bytes total the equalizer data maps. Does anyone recall the reasons for the number selection? So where are we with this? Same question for: ./DOCS-IF-MIB:1167 [3] {range-added} size `(0..512)' added to type used in `docsIfSigQEqualizationData' - For object docsIfCmtsQosProfilePermissions I still see in the DESCRIPTION clause: Either createByManagement(0) or updateByManagement(2) MUST be set when writing to this object. while I see SYNTAX BITS { createByManagement(0), updateByManagement(1), createByModems(2) So that is inconsistent (still). I think you mean Either createByManagement(0) or updateByManagement(1) - Eduardo changed (after my questioning why we have a deprecated value added): docsIfCmtsCmStatusValue OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { other(1), ranging(2), rangingAborted(3), rangingComplete(4), ipComplete(5), registrationComplete(6), accessDenied(7), operational(8), -- deprecated registeredBPIInitializing(9) } to docsIfCmtsCmStatusValue OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { other(1), ranging(2), rangingAborted(3), rangingComplete(4), ipComplete(5), registrationComplete(6), accessDenied(7), -- value 8 not used registeredBPIInitializing(9) } Not sure the new thing is better. I much more wanted to see an explanation as to why the deprecated value was added. If some implementations do use it, then better to add it in deprecated form, so we understand that it may indeed be encountered in real life and if so waht it meant. At same time we see it is depreacted, and we have an explantion as to why (and best to have it in the DESCRIPTION clause). See... it is all not only about being pure, but also about representaing realistic behaviour and explaining to the readers of this doc or MIB module what exactly to expect and why. - There was discussion on list: Randy: docsIfUpChannelScdmaActiveCodes - since the primes can never be set and can never be returned, they should be excluded in the SYNTAX Eduardo: (*) >> I am not sure if this is appropiate or will breaks the regular applications, To exclude prime numbers 67,71,73,79,83,89,97,101,103,107,109, 113,127,the SYNTAX clause will be SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0|64..66|68..70|72|74..78|80..82|84..88|90..96|98..100|102 |104..106|108|110..112|114..126|128) Do you prefer this? How do you break this for the 72 columns ID text file format? Bert: I tried this and broke the line after the 102, and both smicng and smilint are happy. So it can be done and it would make the valid values machine readable instead of just being in the DESCRIPTION clause. - Reference/citation problem: !! Missing citation for Normative reference: P139 L016: [IANA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Data-Over-Cable An easy fix would be: OLD: IANAifType FROM IANAifType-MIB; NEW: IANAifType FROM IANAifType-MIB; -- [IANA] If we're going to do a new revision, then pls update all citations and reference to RFC3291 into one for RFC4001. NITS/Editorial - From an earlier review (6 Jan 2005) by Randy and not yet addressed: 5) EDITORIAL: "reinit" -> "reinitialization" 6) EDITORIAL: "ie" -> "i.e.", or better "that is" 12) EDITORIAL: "head-end" or "headend"? pick one, preferably the former. 13) EDITORIAL: there are some strange capitalizations: "Lineup" in 2.11 "Addressed" in 3.2 (although that is fixed now, now it is in 3.1.4) I checked the above 2. Not the next ones. But did you? "Downstream" in 3.2.5.1 and elsewhere "Cable" in 3.2.5.1.2 "Unicast" on page 12 & 14 & more "Multicast" on page 12 & 14 & more "Broadcast" on page 12 & 14 & more "Upstream" in 3.2.5.2.1 "Contributions" in 5 15) EDITORIAL: "empty string" would be more precise as "zero length string" (This could potentially be technical.) I really wonder why the editors do not take such comments of a carefull review into account when they do a new rev. For completeness, if you do a new rev: $ idnits draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txt idnits 1.74 draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txt: Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate... * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. (The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted.) Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of 1id-guidelines.txt yet). Miscellaneous warnings: None. Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information. Bert _______________________________________________ IPCDN mailing list IPCDN@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
- [ipcdn] AD re-review: draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmib… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review: draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-r… Eduardo Cardona
- [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review: draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-r… Eduardo Cardona