Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] Advice please: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 6445 <draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-21.txt>

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:58:11 -0000

The RFC Editor has observed a number of problems in the MIB modules. The
shepherd write-up says:

> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
> document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
> code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
> an automated checker?
>
> The document is a MIB and compiles clean.

The document editor has responded to the RFC Editor that these are just compiler
warning and:

> These warnings can safely be ignored.  Making the changes necessary to
> avoid those warnings will require significant changes to the MIB, and will
> not be of any real substantive change for implementations

All the problems are SMICng warnings concerning the names of bits (see below).

It seems to me that changing the names of these bits would not have a
significant impact on the document. Indeed, it would only take 15 seconds to
apply.

There is some possibility that early implementations will suffer, but that is
life.

What I don't know is whether these warnings are important in any way, or are
just convention that we would normally stick to, but flunked during earlier
review.

Thanks for any advice,
Adrian

Using SMICng, we are receiving the following warnings all 3 MIB modules:

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (428,33) Name of bit "ARHopSessionAttrFlagsUnsupported" must
start with a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to
"aRHopSessionAttrFlagsUnsupported"

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (429,33) Name of bit "LocalProtectionDesired" must start
with a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "localProtectionDesired"

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (430,33) Name of bit "LabelRecordingDesired" must start with
a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "labelRecordingDesired"

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (431,33) Name of bit "SEStyleDesired" must start with a
lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "sEStyleDesired"

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (432,33) Name of bit "BandwidthProtectionDesired" must start
with a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "bandwidthProtectionDesired"

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (433,33) Name of bit "NodeProtectionDesired" must start with
a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "nodeProtectionDesired"

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (452,34) Name of bit "ARHopRROSubObjectFlagsUnsupported"
must start with a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to
"aRHopRROSubObjectFlagsUnsupported"

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (453,34) Name of bit "LocalProtectionAvailable" must start
with a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "localProtectionAvailable"

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (454,34) Name of bit "LocalProtectionInUse" must start with
a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "localProtectionInUse"

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (455,34) Name of bit "BandwidthProtection" must start with a
lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "bandwidthProtection"

W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (456,34) Name of bit "NodeProtection" must start with a
lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "nodeProtection"

*** 0 errors and 11 warnings in parsing

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 13:21:36 -0800

Hi -

I believe SMICng in incorrect in classifying this situation as a
warning; it should be classified as an error.  RFC 2578 is quite
explicit in section 7.1.4, "The BITS construct":

   Finally, a label for a named-number enumeration must consist of one
   or more letters or digits, up to a maximum of 64 characters, and the
   initial character must be a lower-case letter.  (However, labels
   longer than 32 characters are not recommended.)  Note that hyphens
   are not allowed by this specification.

Calling a bit "LocalProtectionDesired" is a syntax error under the definition
of the SMI, and must be corrected.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 9:58 AM
Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] Advice please: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 6445<draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-21.txt>

> _______________________________________________
> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 20:28:25 -0000

Good man, Randy.

Thanks for that. Just what I needed.

I'll pause just in case someone wants to cry out "Randy is wrong"

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 04 November 2011 21:22
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Advice please: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 6445<draft-ietf-
> mpls-fastreroute-mib-21.txt>
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (455,34) Name of bit "BandwidthProtection" must start
with
> a

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:38:04 +0100

> just convention that we would normally stick to, but flunked during earlier

RFC 2578 says that these identifiers must be lower case. Smilint
considers this a rather fatal parse error. In other words, I think these
ought to be fixed.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:48:40 +0100

>> >  >  not be of any real substantive change for implementations

I believe that the change to lower case should be made.

I do not understand that the document editor claims "will require significant
changes to the MIB". I can hardly believe that it takes more than some
minutes.

Bert

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:13:19 +0100

I agree with Bert and Juergen. It's a simple change in the names +
LAST-UPDATED clause. 

Whoever implemented a pre-RFC version did this on his own
responsibility. 

Dan

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:mib-doctors-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF)
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 9:49 AM
> To: Adrian Farrel; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Advice please: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 6445<draft-
> ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-21.txt>
> 
> 
>