Kalyan.Tata | 17 Oct 20:36 2006
Picon

RE: Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

Hi Joan,

First off, sorry I was a bit busy and could not get to update the mib
with your comments immediatly.
 I completed most of the changes except a couple and would appreciate
your help with the following:

===
4) RFC4181 (MIB Author Guidelines)
suggests using the following for the start of
the OID tree:

  xxxMIB
         |
         +-- xxxNotifications(0)
         +-- xxxObjects(1)
         +-- xxxConformance(2)
             |
             +-- xxxCompliances(1)
             +-- xxxGroups(2)

Currently, the OID tree is:

      vrrpOperations      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { vrrpMIB 1 }
      vrrpStatistics      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { vrrpMIB 2 }

      vrrpConformance     OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { vrrpMIB 3 }
      vrrpNotifications   OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { vrrpMIB 0 }
       vrrpMIBCompliances  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { vrrpConformance 1 }
       vrrpMIBGroups       OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { vrrpConformance 2 }
(Continue reading)

Joan Cucchiara | 23 Oct 16:27 2006
Picon

Re: Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt


Hello Kalyan,

I will reply to your questions below by tomorrow.

Thanks,
  Joan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Kalyan.Tata <at> nokia.com>
To: <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
Cc: <vrrp <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: [VRRP] Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review 
ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

Hi Joan,

First off, sorry I was a bit busy and could not get to update the mib
with your comments immediatly.
 I completed most of the changes except a couple and would appreciate
your help with the following:

===
4) RFC4181 (MIB Author Guidelines)
suggests using the following for the start of
the OID tree:

  xxxMIB
         |
(Continue reading)

Joan Cucchiara | 24 Oct 15:19 2006
Picon

Re: Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <Kalyan.Tata <at> nokia.com>
> To: <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
> Cc: <vrrp <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review 
> ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt
>
>
> Hi Joan,
>
> First off, sorry I was a bit busy and could not get to update the mib
> with your comments immediatly.
> I completed most of the changes except a couple and would appreciate
> your help with the following:
>
> ===
> 4) RFC4181 (MIB Author Guidelines)
> suggests using the following for the start of
> the OID tree:
>
>  xxxMIB
>         |
>         +-- xxxNotifications(0)
>         +-- xxxObjects(1)
>         +-- xxxConformance(2)
>             |
>             +-- xxxCompliances(1)
(Continue reading)

Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 24 Oct 15:48 2006
Picon

RE: Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-0 5.txt

W.r.t.

> > 8) Could notifications be generated or not, using the
> >  the notification MIB and target MIB (RFC2583)?
> >  I don't see a need for this object, but please let me
> >  know the answer to the above question.
> >
> > ++ RFC2583 seems to be Guidelines for Next Hop Client (NHC) Developers.
> > I could find RFC 3878 - Alarm Reporting Control MIB but this did not 
> > look relevant. Could you please clarify?
> 
> Sorry, this was a typo, the RFC is RFC 2573.  The MIBs in 

I think it is better to use RFC3413 instead. It is basically the same
as 2573, but 3413 is the current document (part of STD62) and
it obsoletes the earlier 2573.

Bert

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

Kalyan.Tata | 24 Oct 22:28 2006
Picon

RE: Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

Thanks Joan for the clarifications. 
I have one last issue when trying to fix  "indexing that may create
variables with more than 128 sub-ids"

I will send you the detailed problem tonight.

Thanks once again.
Kalyan

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Joan Cucchiara [mailto:jcucchiara <at> mindspring.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:20 AM
To: Joan Cucchiara; Tata Kalyan (Nokia-ES/MtView); Dan Romascanu
(E-mail)
Cc: vrrp <at> ietf.org; fenner <at> research.att.com
Subject: Re: [VRRP] Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review
ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Kalyan.Tata <at> nokia.com>
> To: <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
> Cc: <vrrp <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review 
> ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt
>
>
> Hi Joan,
>
(Continue reading)

Kalyan.Tata | 25 Oct 21:59 2006
Picon

RE: Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

Hi Joan,
I was trying fix the following :
===========
21)            INDEX    { vrrpOperationsInetAddrType,
vrrpOperationsVrId,
                      ifIndex, vrrpAssociatedIpAddr }

   W: f(VRRP-MIB), (423,8) Row "vrrpAssociatedIpAddrEntry" has
   indexing that may create variables with more than 128 sub-ids

The issue here is that the Address (InetAddress) is 0..255 octets,
but really only need either 4 octets (IPv4 address) or
16 octets (IPv6 address).  Please limit the size of this
using SIZE(0|4|16) (as an example).

DIFFSERV-MIB (and others) give an
example of how to limit the size in the conformance (and also
limit the address type).  This needs to be added to the
conformance section.
===================

++ I get the following additional warning if I add vrrpAssociatedIpAddr
to conformance section.
++ vrrpAssociatedIpAddr is part of table index and I cannot add it to
groups. 

433    5    warning: index of row `vrrpAssociatedIpAddrEntry' can exceed
OID size limit by 142 subidentifier(s)
1591    3    refined object `vrrpAssociatedIpAddr' not listed in a
mandatory or optional group
(Continue reading)

Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 26 Oct 10:40 2006
Picon

RE: Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-0 5.txt

RFC4181 is clear about what to do about warnings w.r.t. 
max number of subids in an OID because of INDEX
object that (in theory) can go beyond 128.

See sect 4.6.6 in RFC4181.

And PLEASE DO Keep the specifics in MODULE-COMPLIANCE.
That shows which exact addressTypes and related max lengths
MUST be supported for compliance.

Hope this helps,
Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kalyan.Tata <at> nokia.com [mailto:Kalyan.Tata <at> nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 22:00
> To: vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org; jcucchiara <at> mindspring.com; 
> dromasca <at> avaya.com
> Cc: fenner <at> research.att.com; vrrp <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review
> ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt
> 
> 
> Hi Joan,
> I was trying fix the following :
> ===========
> 21)            INDEX    { vrrpOperationsInetAddrType,
> vrrpOperationsVrId,
>                       ifIndex, vrrpAssociatedIpAddr }
> 
(Continue reading)

Kalyan.Tata | 26 Oct 21:50 2006
Picon

RE: Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

 Thanks Bert,
	I did go through RFC RFC4181 for this but I was not sure if I
can ignore the new warning that is 
	produced by adding vrrpAssociatedIpAddr to MODULE-COMPLIANCE.

	From your mail, I take it that I can ignore the following.
>    (3) refined object `vrrpAssociatedIpAddr' not listed in a mandatory

> or optional group

	I will go ahead and keep the specifics in compliance section and
also add text to 
	DESCRIPTION indicating the size constraints.

Thanks,
Kalyan

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen <at> lucent.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:40 AM
To: Tata Kalyan (Nokia-ES/MtView); vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org;
jcucchiara <at> mindspring.com; dromasca <at> avaya.com
Cc: fenner <at> research.att.com; vrrp <at> ietf.org
Subject: RE: [VRRP] Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review
ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

RFC4181 is clear about what to do about warnings w.r.t. 
max number of subids in an OID because of INDEX object that (in theory)
can go beyond 128.

(Continue reading)

Joan Cucchiara | 27 Oct 20:05 2006
Picon

Re: Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <Kalyan.Tata <at> nokia.com>
> To: <bwijnen <at> lucent.com>; <vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org>; 
> <jcucchiara <at> mindspring.com>; <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
> Cc: <fenner <at> research.att.com>; <vrrp <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:50 PM
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review 
> ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt
> 
> 
> Thanks Bert,

Thanks from me also Bert!

> I did go through RFC RFC4181 for this but I was not sure if I
> can ignore the new warning that is
> produced by adding vrrpAssociatedIpAddr to MODULE-COMPLIANCE.
> 
> From your mail, I take it that I can ignore the following.
>>    (3) refined object `vrrpAssociatedIpAddr' not listed in a mandatory
> 
>> or optional group
> 
> I will go ahead and keep the specifics in compliance section and
> also add text to
> DESCRIPTION indicating the size constraints.
> 

Hi Kaylan,
(Continue reading)

Kalyan.Tata | 28 Oct 20:24 2006
Picon

RE: Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

Thanks Joan,
I will remove the not-accessible (index) objects from the conformance
section (this will remove the level 3 error)
and will add text to the description (This will take care of the level 5
warning below)

Thanks Again to you and Bert for all the help.

Thanks,
Kalyan

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Joan Cucchiara [mailto:jcucchiara <at> mindspring.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:05 AM
To: Tata Kalyan (Nokia-ES/MtView); Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Dan Romascanu
(E-mail)
Cc: fenner <at> research.att.com; vrrp <at> ietf.org; Joan Cucchiara
Subject: Re: [VRRP] Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review
ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Kalyan.Tata <at> nokia.com>
> To: <bwijnen <at> lucent.com>; <vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org>; 
> <jcucchiara <at> mindspring.com>; <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
> Cc: <fenner <at> research.att.com>; <vrrp <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:50 PM
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] Re: Re: MIB Dr. Review 
> ofdraft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt
> 
(Continue reading)


Gmane