Re: Fwd: [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-12
Robert G Cole <rgcole01 <at> comcast.net>
2012-05-06 14:41:11 GMT
Ulrich and I have updated the NHDP-MIB module to address your questions
and suggestions. We hope these changes are satisfactory?
Bob and Ulrich
----- Original Message -----
From: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts <at> ietf.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:29 PM
To: manet-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org <manet-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org>;
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib <at> tools.ietf.org <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib <at> tools.ietf.org>;
adrian <at> olddog.co.uk <adrian <at> olddog.co.uk>
Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-13.txt
New version (-13) has been submitted for
Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
Diff from previous version:
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 11:14 -0700, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> Dear Joel,
> thank you very much for your review. Find our answers below, and
> please tell us if they address your comments.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Joel M. Halpern <jmh <at> joelhalpern.com>
> Date: Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:59 AM
> Subject: [manet] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-12
> To: gen-art <at> ietf.org
> Cc: manet <at> ietf.org, "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney <at> nostrum.com>,
> sratliff <at> cisco.com
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> Document: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-12
> Definition of Managed Objects for the
> Neighborhood Discovery Protocol
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date: 6-April-2012
> IETF LC End Date: 16-April-2012
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed
> That's good
> Major issues:
> Section 18.104.22.168 on Ignoring Initial Activity is trying to do a very
> reasonable thing, namely suppress notifications for activity which is
> expected. The text references RFC 4750 as precedent. RFC 4750 is
> clear that the suppress window is tied to specific events (interface
> up and election as a DR.) Section 22.214.171.124 does not specify which
> condition(s) start(s) the suppress window. If, as seems likely, it is
> Interface Up which starts the window, please state that explicitly in
> the text.
> [To Bob: I am not so sure if the below is correct. Can you check?]
> Yes, we agree. How about adding the following sentence at the end of
> the paragraph of 126.96.36.199:
> "The suppression window for notifications is started by Interface Up."
> In section 5.4, in addition to describing objects which are defined
> in the MIB, the text describes, under the heading "The following
> objects return statistics related to HELLO messages:", a number of
> what it refers to as "Derived Objects". These do not appear to be
> actual elements of the MIB. They appear rather to be descriptions of
> calculations which the manager can perform using the information from
> the MIB. It is not at all clear why they are here. If I am
> understanding their role properly, and if they belong in this
> document, they belong in some other section, as they are NOT objects
> which return statistics related to HELLO messages. They appear not to
> be returned by the managed device at all.
> [To Bob: It is true that we actually don't use the derived objects. I
> am not quite sure what to do about it. Shall we remove the derived
> Minor issues:
> I can not find the object that corresponds to the setting for
> Ignoring the Initial Activity. I presume this is my error. The
> document would be helped if the object were named in section 188.8.131.52.
> [To Bob: Do we have such object? I am not sure... does OSPF-MIB have
> I believe section 184.108.40.206 on Throttling Traps is intended to refer
> to the StateChange Threshold and StateChangeWindow objects. It would
> be very helpful if these were actually named in section 220.127.116.11.
> How about adding the following sentence to 18.104.22.168:
> The following objects are used to define the thresholds and time
> windows: nhdpNbrStateChangeThreshold,
> nhdpNbrStateChangeWindow, nhdp2HopNbrStateChangeThreshold,
> nhdp2HopNbrStateChangeWindow, nhdpIfRxBadPacketThreshold,
> Most MIBs I review have a description of the tables they contain,
> how the tables relate to each other, and how they are indexed, in the
> front matter that is roughly equivalent to section 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4.
> As I am not a MIB Doctor, I do not know if that is formally required,
> but I find it very helpful, and am surprised not to see it here.
> [To Bob: I am not sure if we need this. I suggest to refer to the MIB
> Doctor review; if they request it, it should be easy to copy the text]
> In looking at the fields in the NhdpInterfaceEntry, some of the
> field definitions include some of the constraints from RFC 6130
> section 5 in their DESCRIPTION clauses. Some do not. (For exampple,
> REFRESH_INTERVAL >= HELLO_INTERVAL is captured in
> nhdbpRefreshInterval, but not in nhdpHelloInterval. The requirement
> that nhdpHelloInterval be greater than 0 is not captured anywhere.
> Neither is H_HOLD_TIME >= REFRESH_INTERVAL captured.) Some elements
> have a statement that the object is persistent, while others do not,
> but these do not seem to correspond to a difference in RFC 6130. It
> is possible that there is a good reason for this apparent variation.
> Is there?
> [To Bob: That's true. I can go through all constraints from NHDP and
> add them to the MIB.]
> Particularly for top-level objects such as nhdpNHoldTime and
> NhdpIHoldTime I would really like to see a better description than
> just this is <named> object from section 5 of RFC 6130. Someone who
> is using the MIB, who is looking at the description clause for
> assistance, really needs something more than the name of the field in
> the MIB. (I think better descriptions would be a good idea through
> much of the MIB.)
> [To Bob: I can look at the descriptions and copy some more text from
> NHDP. However, I would like to avoid copying all NHDP into the MIB.]
> Nits/editorial comments:
> The tracker claims this is "In WG Last Call (manet), but also seems
> to indicate that it is in IETF Last Call. Are the two happening at
> the same time?
> We actually don't know, and will ask the chairs about that.
> manet mailing list
> manet <at> ietf.org