Subject: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:46:43 +0100

Thanks for your work on this document, and sorry for the long time it 
has taken me to review it. It looks like you have done a really
thorough job - I can normally pick a few holes in a MIB 

I think the only big question we are going to get (again) is about the
level of write (and create) access. Do you think that it would be 
helpful to add an Informational reference to
draft-nguyen-manet-management-00 and some discussion in the document
about why you have some level of write access? Maybe this is just a
little more text in Section 9.

I think you should think about this while I run the IETF last call. 
That will attract an OPS Dir review that may dwell on the point further.

---

My other comments are quite small and can all be taken as IETF last call
comments to be fixed later...

The RFC Editor might become confused by the different uses of "XXXX"
in the document. It would be worth sorting them out just to make life
easier.

---

Tiny point...

In olsrv2AHoldTime you have...
               a value = 3 x olsrv2TcInterval is
               recommended.
But in draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15 you have
      a value >= 3 x
      TC_INTERVAL is RECOMMENDED.

---

I think olsrv2LinkMetricType needs to be mentioned in Section 8 because,
according to Section 5.5 of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19, the consequences
of a change are quite significant.

---

Possibly just me being puzzled:

Are you sure that olsrv2TibRoutableAddressTopologySetIndex can really be
limited to Integer32 (0..65535)?  I agree that larger would be a great
validation of OLSRv2, but I wondered how quickly we might reach that
threshold.

Ditto olsrv2TibRouterTopologySetIndex

---

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:03:52 +0100

Ooops,

I just ran idnits. Looks like the references are in a bit of a mess as well.

   [OLSRv2]      Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
                 "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2",
                 draft-ietf-manet-olsr-17 (work in progress),
                 October 2012.
*** should read draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2

Do you really need a normative reference to RFC 3781? This is a Downref (which
we can handle if necessary), but I don't see why it is referenced.

Because these both show as Downrefs, and because Downrefs get called out in IETF
last call, I need an answer to these points before I can go forward. If
answering them involves respinning the document, then it would be good to pick
up the other points as well.

Thanks,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 02 April 2013 21:47
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:20:46 -0700

Adrian,

thank you for your review. We have submitted a new revision -06. See below:

> thorough job - I can normally pick a few holes in a MIB

Thank you :-)

> little more text in Section 9.

We have changed the section. Like I said in the last MANET meeting, I
believe that OLSRv2-MIB (and SNMP in general) will only be used in a
sub-set of MANET deployments. This subset has characteristics that
don't differ as much from the Internet and deployment in which
OSPF-MIB is used (in terms of centralized infrastructure, topology
dynamicity, bandwidth etc). In cases where routers are fully
distributed, have too little resources to run SNMP, bandwidth/loss
rates are unsuitable, etc, I think that SNMP is not suitable, and that
the IETF should come up with different approaches (cf COMAN).

> That will attract an OPS Dir review that may dwell on the point further.

Yes, indeed.

> comments to be fixed later...

Since we uploaded a new revision anyway, we have addressed these comments.

> in the document. It would be worth sorting them out just to make life

See revision -06.

>       TC_INTERVAL is RECOMMENDED.

Good catch! Thanks!

> of a change are quite significant.

I added the following text:
- olsrv2LinkMetricType - defines the type of the link metric that a
router uses (e.g., ETX or hop-count). Whenever this value changes, all
link metric information recorded by the router is invalid, causing a
reset of information acquired from other routers in the MANET.
Moreover, if olsrv2LinkMetricType on a router is set to a value that
is not known to other routers in the MANET, these routers will not be
able to establish routes to that router or transiting that router.
Existing routes to the router with a olsrv2LinkMetricType unknown to
other routers in the MANET will be removed.

> Ditto olsrv2TibRouterTopologySetIndex

Fixed in -06.

We also fixed the wrong reference to OLSRv2 and removed the downref.

Best regards
Ulrich

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:46:59 +0100

Good job.

Will move forward.

A

> From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 08 April 2013 23:21
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib
> 
> Adrian,
>