[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ipcdn] AD re-review: draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txt
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 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn