RE: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-04

[Spencer.Giacalone@predictive.com]

Ken- what mean is, that a lot of what you picked up is not stuff that was 
added in our updates. Can we table this until I get a chance to take a 
look, please? Thanks. 






"Chapman, Ken" <KChapman@unispherenetworks.com>
10/19/00 04:12 PM

 
        To:     "'Spencer.Giacalone@predictive.com'" <Spencer.Giacalone@predictive.com>
        cc:     djoyal@quantumbridge.com, fred@cisco.com, mibs@ops.ietf.org, 
ospf@discuss.microsoft.com, rcoltun@redback.com
        Subject:        RE: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-04


Spencer,
How do you interpret RFC2578, clause 7.7 paragraph 3?

"
   The syntax of the objects in the INDEX clause indicate how to form
   the instance-identifier:

(1)  integer-valued (i.e., having INTEGER as its underlying primitive
     type):  a single sub-identifier taking the integer value (this
     works only for non-negative integers);
"

I'm sorry, but I really don't think that that is "legacy".
                 Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer.Giacalone@predictive.com
> [mailto:Spencer.Giacalone@predictive.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 3:31 PM
> To: Chapman, Ken
> Cc: djoyal@quantumbridge.com; fred@cisco.com; mibs@ops.ietf.org;
> ospf@discuss.microsoft.com; rcoltun@redback.com
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-04
> 
> 
> Hold on there, guy. All lot of what your finding is legacy.. 
> I don't know 
> if I agree with turning everything on in your .inc file- you 
> might want to 
> think about that... 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Chapman, Ken" <KChapman@unispherenetworks.com>
> 10/19/00 02:57 PM
> 
> 
>         To:     "'Spencer.Giacalone@predictive.com'" 
> <Spencer.Giacalone@predictive.com>
>         cc:     djoyal@quantumbridge.com, fred@cisco.com, 
> mibs@ops.ietf.org, 
> ospf@discuss.microsoft.com, rcoltun@redback.com
>         Subject:        RE: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-04
> 
> 
> Spence,
> I'm using SMICng (v2.2.07), and that is how I found these. 
> You have to enable all the checking (except B, which I think is 
> inconsistant
> with RFC2578).
> 
> Now, I've found more bugs. 
> 
> Integer objects used as INDEX (auxiliary) objects can't be negative 
> (RFC2578
> clause 7.7 bottom of page 27). 
> Therefore, you need to change the SYNTAX for ospfAddressLessIf,
> ospfIfMetricAddressLessIf, ospfNbrAddressLessIndex, and
> ospfLocalLsdbAddressLessIf from Integer32 to Unsigned32.
> Note that ospfNbrAddressLessIndex actually uses the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
> InterfaceIndex, which conflicts with the TC in the IF-MIB 
> with the same 
> name
> and therefore should not be used (besides, you really want 
> the full 32 
> bits
> to accomidate IP addresses).
> Therefore I recommend using Unsigned32 and removing the 
> InterfaceIndex TC
> altogether.
> 
> For consistancy (with updating to SMIv2), I suggest importing 
> mib-2 from
> SNMPv2-MIB rather than RFC1213-MIB.
> (This is not a bug, but... RFC1213 should be retired, IMHO.)
>                  Ken
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Ken Chapman           Unisphere Networks, Inc.
> Tel: +1-978-614-5322  5 Carlisle Drive
> Fax: +1-978-692-9992  Westford, MA 01886
> Email: KChapman@UnisphereNetworks.com
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Spencer.Giacalone@predictive.com
> > [mailto:Spencer.Giacalone@predictive.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 1:13 PM
> > To: Chapman, Ken
> > Cc: djoyal@quantumbridge.com; fred@cisco.com; mibs@ops.ietf.org;
> > ospf@discuss.microsoft.com; rcoltun@redback.com
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-04
> > 
> > 
> > Ken, 
> > 
> > Thanks. The first might be a fat finger on my part, but SMIC 
> > didnt pick 
> > the rest up. Let me take a look and get back to you. Imports 
> > might be a 
> > legacy thing. 
> > 
> > Spence
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "Chapman, Ken" <KChapman@unispherenetworks.com>
> > 10/19/00 11:41 AM
> > 
> > 
> >         To:     "'ospf@discuss.microsoft.com'" 
> > <ospf@discuss.microsoft.com>
> >         cc:     "'spencer.giacalone@predictive.com'" 
> > <spencer.giacalone@predictive.com>, 
> > "'djoyal@quantumbridge.com'" <djoyal@quantumbridge.com>, 
> 'Rob Coltun' 
> > <rcoltun@redback.com>, "'fred@cisco.com'" <fred@cisco.com>, 
> > "'mibs@ops.ietf.org'" <mibs@ops.ietf.org>
> >         Subject:        draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-04
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > I'm not a regular on this list and don't know a whole lot 
> > about OSPF; I'm
> > just an SNMP geek.
> > But I found some bugs in the MIBs, and I didn't see any 
> > issues raised in 
> > the
> > archives.
> > 
> > There is a bug in OSPF-TRAP-MIB: 
> > The last object imported from OSPF-MIB is 
> > "ospfAreaExtNssaTranslatorStatus";
> > it should be "ospfAreaNssaTranslatorState".
> > 
> > There are some minor "conformace" issues with the MIBs as presented:
> > 
> > The "00" year part of the dates in the LAST_UPDATED and 
> > REVISION clauses
> > need to be "2000"
> > (ref: RFC2578 clause 2 (top of page 5).
> > 
> > ospfAuthType is not included in any OBJECT-GROUP definition. 
> > 
> > None of the notifications in OSPF-TRAP-MIB are included in a
> > NOTIFICATION-GROUP. 
> > (note: don't forget to import NOTIFICATION-GROUP from SMIv2-CONF.)
> > 
> > While the last two are not violations per se (as far as I can 
> > tell from
> > reading RFC2580),
> > it makes it difficult to include these items in an 
> AGENT-CAPABILITIES
> > definition.
> > 
> > I hope this is helpful.
> > Cheers.
> >                  Ken
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>