Subject: RE: [Hubmib] MIB doctor comments on draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-05.txt

From: "McTague, Charles" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:57:58 -0400

If this has been covered in previous emails please ignore this question.

In the pethPsePortEntry I noticed that entries 6, 9, 10, and 12 are not
used.  The same sparseness occurs in pethMainPseEntry with entries 5 and
6.
Is this sparse OID allocation a result of multiple changes over 
the 5 drafts and could therefore be compressed, or is there another
reason behind it?  I realize this is perfectly legal from the syntax
side of things, but I thought I would ask.

Thanks,
chuck

---------------------------
Charles McTague
Principal Firmware Engineer
Enterasys Networks, Inc.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Fri, 23 May, 2003 2:47 PM
>To: Hub MIB Mailing List
>Subject: [Hubmib] MIB doctor comments on 
>draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-05.txt
>
>
>On Fri, 23 May 2003, [email-masked] wrote:
>>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>>Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the
>>Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>>      Title           : Power Ethernet MIB
>>      Author(s)       : A. Berger, D. Romascanu
>>      Filename        : draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-05.txt
>>      Pages           : 28
>>      Date            : 2003-5-22
>>
>>This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base
>>(MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet
>>community.  The document proposes an extension to the
>>Ethernet-like Interfaces MIB with a set of objects for managing a
>>Power Source Equipment (PSE).
>>
>>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-power-et
>hernet-mib-05.txt
>
>In order to help the WG produce the cleanest possible document I've
>attempted to do a complete "MIB Doctor" review of this draft.  The
>draft does seem to address the comments raised by my previous
>review, but there are a few additional small issues that I did not
>catch last time (my apologies to the authors for this).  As before,
>I've not been able to check the document for editorial and technical
>consistency with the 802.3af draft, since I have not been
>participating in the Power Ethernet work and do not have access to
>the specification.  I'm hoping that the 802.3af participants who
>monitor the Hub MIB mailing list will make those checks.
>
>The comments below follow the MIB review checklist from Appendix A
>of <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt>.
>
>1.) I-D Boilerplate -- OK
>
>2.) Abstract -- OK
>
>3.) MIB Boilerplate -- OK
>
>4.) IPR Notices -- OK:  (a) the required boilerplate is present
>and no claims are noted;  and (b) the following search of the IPR
>statements on the IETF web site did not reveal any relevant claims:
>
>                            IETF Search Engine
>   _________________________________________________________________
>
> Query: power ethernet____________________________________
>
> Press button to submit your query or reset the form: Search Reset
>
> Query Options:
> Maximum number of hits: [1000]
>     Scope: [IPR Statements________]
>     Match: [All____]
>     Format: [Long_]
>     Sort by: [Score________]
>   _________________________________________________________________
>
>                              Search results
>   _________________________________________________________________
>
> No matches were found for '(power or powered or powering or powers)
> and (ethernet or ethernets)'
>
>NOTE: if any WG participants are aware of any pertinent intellectual
>property claims, please post them to the WG mailing list.
>
>5.) References -- OK
>
>6.) Security Considerations Section -- OK
>
>7.) IANA Considerations Section -- OK (none present and none
>required).
>
>8.) Copyright notices -- OK
>
>9.) MIB compilation -- no problems found from smilint:
>
>   This command (smilint 0.4.2-pre1, as of Mon May 19 16:33:46 2003)
>   has been processed to get the following results:
>   smilint -m -s -l 6 -i namelength-32 POWER-ETHERNET-MIB
>
>   no errors found.
>
>10.) Other issues, e.g., stuff in http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html
>that is not covered above:
>
>(a) there are a few places in the text of the MIB module (Section 5,
>"Definitions") and in the references section where the line length
>exceeds 72 characters.  With one exception, the MIB module will obey
>the 72-character limit once the RFC Editor notes are removed if the
>three space indentation is taken out;  the exception is in the
>MANDATORY-GROUPS clause of the pethPseCompliance definition.  The
>references section is clean once the RFC Editor notes are removed
>except for [IEEE-802.3af];  this should not be a problem, however,
>since the RFC Editor routinely reformats the references.
>
>(b) In the second paragraph of Section 3, "Overview":
>s/IEEE 802.3af WG will not define/IEEE 802.3af WG did not define/
>
>(c) In Section 4, "MIB Structure", third paragraph:
>s/pethNotificationsControlTable/pethNotificationControlTable/
>s/Transmission of notifications/transmission of notifications/
>
>(please be sure to fix this one;  it is especially important to get
>the name of the table name right)
>
>11.) Technical content -- here are the comments on the content of
>Section 5, "Definitions."
>
>(a) There needs to be an RFC Editor note with an instruction to
>replace "IEEE Draft P802.3af/D4.3" with "IEEE Std 802.3af"
>in all REFERENCE clauses.  Alternatively, if another draft is
>issued after the draft is approved by the IEEE standards board,
>then the authors could make this change.
>
>(b) The pethPseCompliance compliance statement appears both to be
>misnamed (it applies only to PSE that have a main power supply, not
>necessarily to all PSE) and to be redundant with pethCompliance (the
>latter imposes the same requirements on PSE with a main power
>supply).  I would recommend, therefore, that pethPseCompliance be
>removed (which would also solve the formatting problem mentioned in
>10(a) above).  An alternative (which would be acceptable, but which
>I do not recommend) would be to re-name it to pethMainPSECompliance
>and change the DESCRIPTION clause to something along the lines of:
>
>               "Describes the requirements for PSE devices
>               that have a main power supply."
>
>(b) It seems that pethMainPseGroup was assigned the OID
>{ pethGroups 3 } by mistake.  In order to have no gaps, it should be
>{ pethGroups 2 } instead  (sorry for not finding this earlier).
>
>(c) It seems that pethNotificationControlGroup was assigned the OID
>{ pethGroups 4 } by mistake.  In order to have no gaps, it should be
>{ pethGroups 3 } instead  (sorry for not finding this earlier).
>
>(d) It seems that pethPsePortNotificationGroup was assigned the OID
>{ pethCompliances 4 } by mistake.  For consistency, it should be
>{ pethGroups 4 } (sorry for not finding this earlier).  [It would
>also look better if the indentation were consistent with that of
>pethNotificationControlGroup, i.e., moved left two spaces.]
>
>(e) It seems that pethMainPowerNotificationGroup was assigned he OID
>{ pethCompliances 5 } by mistake.  or consistency, it should be
>{ pethGroups 5 } (sorry for not finding this earlier).  [It would
>also look better if the indentation were consistent with that of
>pethNotificationControlGroup, i.e., moved left four spaces.]
>
>This concludes the POWER-ETHERNET-MIB review comments.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike Heard
>
>_______________________________________________
>Hubmib mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
>
_______________________________________________
Hubmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:00:39 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 23 May 2003, McTague, Charles wrote:
> In the pethPsePortEntry I noticed that entries 6, 9, 10, and 12
> are not used.  The same sparseness occurs in pethMainPseEntry
> with entries 5 and 6.
> 
> the 5 drafts and could therefore be compressed, or is there
> another reason behind it?  I realize this is perfectly legal
> from the syntax side of things, but I thought I would ask.

Thanks for pointing this out;  I missed it completely, and
recommend that the OID assignments be made contiguous.

Mike

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:00:39 -0700 (PDT)

Mike