Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-13.txt

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:31:35 +0200

A stray doubt or so on this:-(

1) RFC2434 is referenced in the IANA considerations but not in the list of
references.

2) p.2   ..advandtage ...

3) I am confused by the enumeration gmplsFreeformLabel(3); this also appears in
the DESCRIPTION of GmplsLabelTypeTC in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt but
I see no such enumeration defined.  Should this be
gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3)?

4) p.8 ...  accsesible ...
Presumably, this will always be gmplsLabelType(4) for mplsInSegmentLabelPtr and
mplsOutSegmentLabelPtr

5) I think that on p.23,
     ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX }
should be
     ::= { mplsStdMIB ZZZ }
in order to conform to the instructions to the RFC Editor (I know, they are
intelligent enough to get it right but I do like things to be as simple as
possible)

6) Likewise, I think that on p.12,
     ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX }
should be
     ::= { mplsStdMIB YYY }
in order to conform to the instructions to the RFC editor

7) I notice that references to the tc-mib are variously to it as its
to-be-assigned RFC number - eg p.22 - or to it as [GMPLSTCMIB] - eg p.21; not a
problem, I
assume that this is a matter of style.

Tom Petch

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:43:37 +0200

I am confused about freeform labels.  I am not familiar with them from other
contexts and so am not clear how significant they are but ...

(draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-)tc-mib under GmplsFreeformLabelTC references RFC3471
which would be a good place to read about them except I can see no mention of
them there.  They appear in tc-mib, lsr-mib and te-mib - they are used as worked
examples which is what attracted my attention - but I cannot find them anywhere
else in the (G)MPLS library.  I think that more description is needed somewhere.

Why does GmplsFreeformLabelTC give size limits of 0 and 64?  Can they really be
0-length?  I have no problem with an SMI object having zero length as long as
the entity being modeled by it can have zero length but is that meaningful here?
And why 64? ok, a lot more than 32-bit but 64 sounds arbitrary (in which case, I
think that worth saying); or does 64 octet relate to some other well known
address formats (IPv6 anyone?).

When GmplsFreeformLabelTC says 'not defined in any RFC',  I think it sums it up
too well:-(

So the use of gmplsFreeformLabel(3) everywhere except in the formal definition
where it appears (I assume) as gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3) seems about
right as does the descripttion

"The label is any form of label
encoded as an OCTET STRING using
the Textual Convention GmplsFreeformLabel"

Well no, the Textual Convention is GmplsFreeformLabelTC and I would rather say
that the label is encoded using the Textual Convention GmplsFreeformLabelTC
(even though that is a redefinition of an OCTET STRING).

I think more should be said somewhere, ideally in RFC3471, but, more
realistically, in tc-mib.

Tom Petch

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:06:47 -0400

Tom,

	If you have specific suggestions for
changes, please propose them.

	--Tom