Subject: [MEXT] Review of draft-ietf-mext-nemo-mib-03.txt

From: Alberto García <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:16:37 +0100

Hi,

Marcelo Bagnulo has requested me to review the
draft-ietf-mext-nemo-mib-03.txt from a MIB-expert point of view (sorry, I'm
not a NEMO expert). Here are some comments:

- Page 3, section 2.1, second paragraph. It is not clear what is the
relationship of the first two sentences and the third. Needs some rewrite

- Page 5. remove commented line in IMPORTS section 

            -- Counter64

- page 16. This is a matter of preferences: I prefer the name of the table
being included in the name of the objects that belong to the table. Most of
the tables you define are according to this rule of thumb.

Then, nemoBindingMrFlag should be nemoBindingCacheMrFlag. The same for
nemoBindingMrMode. Then, it is easy to read

            nemoBindingCacheGroup    OBJECT-GROUP

                     OBJECTS {

                   nemoBindingMrFlag,

                   nemoBindingMrMode

            }

The same consideration is raised for the objects of the nemoHaCounterTable,
defined in page 28 and above.

- Page 18. It is unclear why both { nemoMrEgressIfIndex,
nemoMrEgressIfPriority } must be INDEX of the table. It seems
nemoMrEgressIfIndex is enough. If not, explain in the DESCRIPTION of the
Entry clause why you need nemoMrEgressIfPriority.

- Page 18. In nemoMrEgressIfPriority, s/Unsigned32/ Unsigned32 (0..255) If
finally the priority is included in the INDEX clause, then (RFC 4181, page
14) 

            "It is acceptable to include zero in the

       range when it is semantically significant or when it is used as

       the index value for a unique row with special properties.  Such

       usage SHOULD be clearly documented in the DESCRIPTION clause."

- Page 19. why does nemoMrEgressIfDescription   has read-write MAX-ACCESS ?
I don't see the point of this. However, if there is, explain in the
DESCRIPTION clause.

Additionally, it is unclear which string is expected for this object:
describe which kind of description should be included as a value for the
objects. 

Finally, which default values or which criteria the agent will follow to set
this description? Include both issues in the DESCRIPTION

- Page 19. why does nemoMrEgressIfRoamHoldDownTime is read-write? Detail in
DESCRIPTION Default values?

What happens with the written information if the agent reboots?

- Page 33. From the DESCRIPTION clause, it is impossible to see the
difference among nemoHaStatsGroup   and nemoHaGlobalStatsGroup.

By the way, note some inconsistency in the names for the objects in the
nemoHaStatsGroup   (eg. nemoHaBUReque...) and the names in the
nemoHaGlobalStatsGroup   (eg. nemoHaBindingAck...). Use always "BU" and "BA"
or "BindingUpdate" and "BindingAck"...

- Page 40. Does the malicious configuration of the
nemoMrEgressIfRoamHoldDownTime object may suppose any kind of vulnerability
for the system?

- Page 41. In the second line there are the names of 3 objects unconnected
to the rest of the text.

Regards,

Alberto Garcia ([email-masked])

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext