Re: MIB DOctor review requested

[Harrie Hazewinkel <harrie@lisanza.net>]

Hi

I just gave a quick view at
(note, my knowledge of GMPLS details is very limited):


> > > > >  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-07.txt

1)
>    GmplsSegmentDirection ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
>      STATUS      current
>      DESCRIPTION
>        "The direction of data flow on an LSP segment with respect to the
>         head of the LSP.
>
>         Where an LSP is signaled using a conventional signaling
>         protocol, the 'head' of the LSP is the source of the signaling
>         (also known as the ingress) and the 'tail' is the destination
>         (also known as the egress). For unidirectional LSPs, this
>         usually matches the direction of flow of data.
>
>         For manually configured unidirectional LSPs the direction of the
>         LSP segment matches the direction of flow of data. For manually
>         configured bidirecitonal LSPs, an arbitrary decision must be
>         made about which LER is the 'head'."
>      SYNTAX  INTEGER {
>        forward(1),
>        reverse(2)
>      }

It is not clear to me what forward and reverse mean. In the
description you use, ingress and egress or something like
haed and tail. But I cannot relate this to forward and reverse.


2)
Also in those places where you refer to rfc xxx or oid yyy,
add an NOTE for the RFC editor or IANA and that they take away
the note. I beleive the guidelines provide details.


3)
Also if this draft is published as RFC together with the
[GMPLSLSRMIB], [GMPLSTEMIB], [GMPLSSonetSDH] it might be wise
to make a note of that so the correct RFC is directly
added here.





hth
--
Harrie

Internet Development Services
mailto: harrie(at)lisanza.net              http://www.lisanza.net/
skype/aim/yahoo: hhazewinkel              http://www.mod-snmp.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management of Apache HTTP server