headers
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 8 May 2006 14:59
Favicon

FW: HUBMIB-Not having a session at IETF 66


-----Original Message-----
From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool
[mailto:session_request_developers <at> ietf.org] 
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:59 PM
To: session-request <at> ietf.org
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); david.kessens <at> nokia.com; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Subject: HUBMIB-Not having a session at IETF 66 

Dan Romascanu, a chair of the HUBMIB working group, indicated that the
HUBMIB working group does not plan to hold a session at IETF 66.

This message was generated and sent by the IETF Meeting Session Request
Tool.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David T. Perkins | 11 May 2006 01:03

Review of EFM-04 I-D

HI,

I finished reviewing I-D draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-04.txt.
My notes are below.

General comments:
 The updated document looks very clean. 
 It runs through both SMICng and smilint with no problems.
 I read through the document fairly quickly, and didn't
 try to verify all the references to other documents.
 (Even if there are a typo or two, a reader should be
 able to sort this out.)

Specific Comments:
1) The last paragraph of section 5 reads a little strange
   to me. It seems more complex than needed. (Given that it
   is an overview, it's Ok to leave as is. However, I suggest
   that it be simplified to the following:
   "There are two notifications defined to report Ethernet OAM
   events and are contained in one conformance group."

2) The TC Dot3Oui is defined in the module and has general
   applicability to all IEEE 802 areas. It seems like this
   should be defined elsewhere are imported into this module.
   (This is a duplicate of the comment made in the previous
    review, and I cannot remember the response.)

3) Also, the TC Dot3Oui where used is specified as having
   the value of zero. Either this should be changed to say
   the value of 3 octets of zero, or the syntax of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 11 May 2006 12:38
Favicon

RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D

Thank you David. 

Matt, please address the comments.

Could we consider the comments as initial comments for the IETF Last
Call without necessarily doing a new iteration?  If everybody agrees, I
believe that David Kessens could prepare the document for IETFLC. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins <at> dsperkins.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:03 AM
> To: hubmib <at> ietf.org
> Cc: msquire <at> hatterasnetworks.com; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Subject: Review of EFM-04 I-D
> 
> HI,
> 
> I finished reviewing I-D draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-04.txt.
> My notes are below.
> 
> General comments:
>  The updated document looks very clean. 
>  It runs through both SMICng and smilint with no problems.
>  I read through the document fairly quickly, and didn't  try 
> to verify all the references to other documents.
>  (Even if there are a typo or two, a reader should be  able 
> to sort this out.)
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 11 May 2006 13:26
Picon
Favicon

RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D

W.r.t.

>          
> 4) The syntax of object dot3OamMaxOamPduSize is specified
>     as "SYNTAX (0..1518)", but the text says values
>     1..63 are not allowed. So, why not
>     "SYNTAX (0 | 64..1518)
> 

Mmmm... which document are you looking at?
The   that I have says (on page 15)
      dot3OamMaxOamPduSize OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX      Unsigned32 (64..1518)
        UNITS       "octets"
        MAX-ACCESS  read-only
        STATUS      current
        DESCRIPTION
          "The largest OAMPDU that the OAM entity supports.  OAM
          entities exchange maximum OAMPDU sizes and negotiate to use
          the smaller of the two maximum OAMPDU sizes between the peers.
          This value is determined by the local implementation.
          "
        REFERENCE   "[802.3ah], 30.3.6.1.8"
        ::= { dot3OamEntry 4 }

So it does not have (0..1518) and the DESCRIPTION clause also does not tell
me what a value of zero would mean ??
I tried to find it in the 802.3ah spec, but have not found it (yet).

Bert
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 11 May 2006 14:58
Picon
Favicon

RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D

Ok, I did not link through to clause 4.4.1.
So then it seems that 0-63 are not valid values. Or is zero length 
a special case?

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David_Law <at> 3com.com [mailto:David_Law <at> 3com.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 13:46
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: David T. Perkins; dromasca <at> avaya.com; hubmib <at> ietf.org;
> msquire <at> hatterasnetworks.com
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Review of EFM-04 I-D
> 
> 
> Hi Bert,
> 
> I don't know if the following is what you were looking for in 
> IEEE Std 
> 802.3ah-2004 (please note that IEEE 802.3ah-2004 has been 
> superseded by 
> IEEE 802.3-2005 which I will quote from):
> 
> Subclause 30.3.6.1.8 'aOAMLocalPDUConfiguration' of IEEE Std 
> 802.3-2005 
> reads:
> 
> ATTRIBUTE
> APPROPRIATE SYNTAX:
> INTEGER
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 504 comments |
headers
David T. Perkins | 11 May 2006 16:44

RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D

HI,

oops. Cut and paste error on my part. Should be
dot3OamPeerMaxOamPduSize.

Regards,
/david t. perkins

On Thu, 11 May 2006, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> W.r.t.
> 
> >          
> > 4) The syntax of object dot3OamMaxOamPduSize is specified
> >     as "SYNTAX (0..1518)", but the text says values
> >     1..63 are not allowed. So, why not
> >     "SYNTAX (0 | 64..1518)
> > 
> 
> Mmmm... which document are you looking at?
> The   that I have says (on page 15)
>       dot3OamMaxOamPduSize OBJECT-TYPE
>         SYNTAX      Unsigned32 (64..1518)
>         UNITS       "octets"
>         MAX-ACCESS  read-only
>         STATUS      current
>         DESCRIPTION
>           "The largest OAMPDU that the OAM entity supports.  OAM
>           entities exchange maximum OAMPDU sizes and negotiate to use
>           the smaller of the two maximum OAMPDU sizes between the peers.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 11 May 2006 16:53
Picon
Favicon

RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D

OK, then, for me it seems that the revision 4 of the document has
the proper SYNTYAX, namely
         SYNTAX      Unsigned32 (64..1518)

Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David_Law <at> 3com.com [mailto:David_Law <at> 3com.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 15:45
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: David T. Perkins; dromasca <at> avaya.com; hubmib <at> ietf.org;
> msquire <at> hatterasnetworks.com
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Review of EFM-04 I-D
> 
> 
> Hi Bert,
> 
> The following is just my personal view of what IEEE Std 802.3 
> states, but 
> based on the text in Table 57-9 of IEEE Std 802.3-2005 that 
> states that 
> 'The minimum value is minFrameSize / 8.' and subclause 4.4.2 defining 
> minFrameSize as 512 bits the minimum value for Maximum OAMPDU 
> Size is 64.
> 
> I therefore believe 0-63 inclusive are not valid, I don't see 
> any special 
> case for 0.
> 
> Regards,
>   David
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 11 May 2006 17:07
Picon
Favicon

RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D

For that one I agree with your comment Dave.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins <at> dsperkins.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 16:44
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: hubmib <at> ietf.org; dromasca <at> avaya.com; msquire <at> hatterasnetworks.com
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Review of EFM-04 I-D
> 
> 
> HI,
> 
> oops. Cut and paste error on my part. Should be
> dot3OamPeerMaxOamPduSize.
> 
> Regards,
> /david t. perkins
> 
> On Thu, 11 May 2006, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 
> > W.r.t.
> > 
> > >          
> > > 4) The syntax of object dot3OamMaxOamPduSize is specified
> > >     as "SYNTAX (0..1518)", but the text says values
> > >     1..63 are not allowed. So, why not
> > >     "SYNTAX (0 | 64..1518)
> > >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Matt Squire | 11 May 2006 19:08
Favicon

RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D


You are correct, the zero part of (0|64..1518) is a mistake. 

- Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen <at> lucent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: David T. Perkins; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: hubmib <at> ietf.org; dromasca <at> avaya.com; Matt Squire
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Review of EFM-04 I-D
> 
> For that one I agree with your comment Dave.
> 
> Bert
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins <at> dsperkins.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 16:44
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: hubmib <at> ietf.org; dromasca <at> avaya.com;
msquire <at> hatterasnetworks.com
> > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Review of EFM-04 I-D
> >
> >
> > HI,
> >
> > oops. Cut and paste error on my part. Should be
> > dot3OamPeerMaxOamPduSize.
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Matt Squire | 11 May 2006 19:41
Favicon

RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D

Hi David - 

Thanks for the (re-)review.  Responses are in-line. 

> 
> Specific Comments:
> 1) The last paragraph of section 5 reads a little strange
>    to me. It seems more complex than needed. (Given that it
>    is an overview, it's Ok to leave as is. However, I suggest
>    that it be simplified to the following:
>    "There are two notifications defined to report Ethernet OAM
>    events and are contained in one conformance group."

As a recap for those that don't have the document in front of them, the
last paragraph says:

"There are also a set of notifications (dot3OamNotifications) that
define alert conditions to management.  The [802.3ah] Event
Notifications can each be implemented independently of any other, and
therefore each has their own conformance group. " 

And I agree that it's confusing.  I'd offer a slight alteration to your
proposal.

"There are two notifications defined to report Ethernet OAM events (one
for threshold crossing events, one for non-threshold crossing events).
Both notifications are contained in the same conformance group. "

> 
> 2) The TC Dot3Oui is defined in the module and has general
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane