RE: MIB DOctor review requested - GMPLS MIB documents

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Harrie, thanks for the quick scan during my vacation.

However, this is not the MIB doctor review that is needed
before these documents can go to IETF Last Call. We need
a much more detailed review, and not just of the
TC-MIB, but also the other documents.

If no-one picks up on this, then it just gets added to my 
queue (of course I get payed the big bucks, so I get
what I deserve). To re-list the 3 docs in question:

   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-07.txt
   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-09.txt
   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-08.txt

I also know that a few of the MIB doctors on this list in fact
DO do a regular review. But there are a few here that have not
reviewed much (if anything) for a few years now. May I call
upon them to volunteer?

Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Harrie Hazewinkel
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 18:04
> To: Adrian Farrel
> Cc: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: MIB DOctor review requested
> 
> 
> 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
>