[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: WG Last Cal for draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-04.txt



Before you do the WG Last Call, I would urge the authors to
- check that the MIB does comply with
   draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt
- Note that since this doc has been around for a while,
  quite a few references (plus the MIB boilerplate and
  security considerations and such have changed as
  a result of SNMPv3 having advanced to full STD).
  details are in:
     draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt
  and at www.ops.ietf.org



        Will do. The boilerplate is definitely out
of date.




- note that I did not do a detailed review this time, just a quick
  check to see if this si ready for WG Last Call.
  I'd hope that authors and WG chairs make sure that the
  document is in good shape as per the guidelines in
   draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt



        Will do.




- make sure that the SMI syntax errors/warnings (see below)

  are fixed/addressed





E: f(lmp.mi2), (326,20) Index item "lmpCcId" must be defined with syntax 
that in

cludes a range

W: f(lmp.mi2), (2212,20) Variable "ifIndex" in notification 
"lmpDataLinkProperty

Mismatch" is an index for a table

W: f(lmp.mi2), (2265,20) Variable "ifIndex" in notification 
"lmpTeLinkDegraded"

is an index for a table

W: f(lmp.mi2), (2275,20) Variable "ifIndex" in notification 
"lmpTeLinkNotDegrade

d" is an index for a table

W: f(lmp.mi2), (2287,20) Variable "ifIndex" in notification 
"lmpDataLinkVerifica

tionFailure" is an index for a table

W: f(lmp.mi2), (2637,19) MIN-ACCESS value identical to access specified 
for "lmp

CcOperStatus"

W: f(lmp.mi2), (2690,19) MIN-ACCESS value identical to access specified 
for "lmp

TeLinkOperStatus"

W: f(lmp.mi2), (2761,19) MIN-ACCESS value identical to access specified 
for "lmp

DataLinkActiveOperStatus"

W: f(lmp.mi2), (2767,19) MIN-ACCESS value identical to access specified 
for "lmp DataLinkPassiveOperStatus"


        We will post a new revision based on these comments
next week.

        --Tom





Thanks,
Bert