[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Review of EFM-04 I-D (fwd)
HI,
My review of the OAM MIB is below.
It includes the TC Dot3Oui, which is general
in applicability.
Is there such a TC already defined? If not,
should this go in the collection of IEEE TCs?
Regards,
/david t. perkins
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: David T. Perkins <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
To: hubmib@ietf.org
Cc: msquire@hatterasnetworks.com, dromasca@avaya.com
Subject: Review of EFM-04 I-D
HI,
I finished reviewing I-D draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-04.txt.
My notes are below.
General comments:
The updated document looks very clean.
It runs through both SMICng and smilint with no problems.
I read through the document fairly quickly, and didn't
try to verify all the references to other documents.
(Even if there are a typo or two, a reader should be
able to sort this out.)
Specific Comments:
1) The last paragraph of section 5 reads a little strange
to me. It seems more complex than needed. (Given that it
is an overview, it's Ok to leave as is. However, I suggest
that it be simplified to the following:
"There are two notifications defined to report Ethernet OAM
events and are contained in one conformance group."
2) The TC Dot3Oui is defined in the module and has general
applicability to all IEEE 802 areas. It seems like this
should be defined elsewhere are imported into this module.
(This is a duplicate of the comment made in the previous
review, and I cannot remember the response.)
3) Also, the TC Dot3Oui where used is specified as having
the value of zero. Either this should be changed to say
the value of 3 octets of zero, or the syntax of the
TC be modified to the following:
SYNTAX OCTET STRING(SIZE(0 | 3))
I favor saying that the value is 3 octets of zero,
since a zero length value may break existing mgmt apps.
Note: objects dot3OamPeerVendorOui, and
dot3OamEventLogOui
4) The syntax of object dot3OamMaxOamPduSize is specified
as "SYNTAX (0..1518)", but the text says values
1..63 are not allowed. So, why not
"SYNTAX (0 | 64..1518)
In summary, great job Matt and others that worked on the
document.
Regards,
/david t. perkins