Subject: [OPSAWG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:42:58 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean the following as a question, because it's something I've never
thought about, but seems odd: Is it normal to have 2119 language in the
description fields in a MIB definition? Who is that language intended
for?

-- 6.1, vm-mib "description" field:

Do you expect the sentence about 'yyy' being temporary to be removed by
the RFC Editor? If so, you probably want a note to that effect.

-- VirtualMachineList description: "... set of eight virtual machine
vmIndex..."

Should vmIndex be plural?

-- 8, 1st paragraph:

"noticeable number of notifications"

Is "noticeable" the word you intended? It seems like any number of
notifications might be noticeable--that's the point of notifications.
Also, this sentence seems out of place (the next sentence seams to draw a
conclusion from the sentence prior to this one.)

"... It is recommended that attention be given to these objects ...

I'm not sure what it means to give attention to the objects. Identifying
who or what needs to give attention might help. (consider  active voice)

-- paragraph 5: "It is recommended that the implementers consider the
security
   features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework."

Do you mean "use the ... features" or "consider using the ... features"?

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:55:03 +0200

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib/
I've seen that before.
I don't think that's an issue.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:33:51 +0200

> I don't think that's an issue.
In my view, it is OK to use rfc2119 language to describe specific required behaviour
for a specific object.
It is not ok to use rfc2119 lnguage to indicate if an object msut/should/or may be
supported. That needs to be defined in the MODULE COMPLIANCE section of a MIB module.

my 2 cents
Bert
> Regards, Benoit
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>

---

From: "ietfdbh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:21:34 -0400

A MIB specification serves as a contract between implementers and users. It
is really a virtual database schema.
When there is a MUST, a compliant implementer MUST ensure their
implementation behaves as stated.
When an operator retrieves a value from a compliance-claiming
implementation, they expect the implementation to follow the specified
behavior.

However, technology is a moving target and sometimes how an entity can be
monitored/manages needs to change to meet reality.
So while the standards might mandate a specific behavior, innovations in
implementations and usages might lead to non-compliant  changes.

As compared to, say, a transport protocol, the "sender" of monitored values
is the MIB implementation, and the receiver is the NMS/operator.
Be conservative in what you send - the MIB "agent" implementer should follow
the MIB specifications in determining what to send.
Be liberal in what you receive - an NMS/operator should "trust but verify" -
and read the release notes.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
+1-603-828-1401

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benoit
> Claise
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 6:55 AM
> To: Ben Campbell; The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-opsawg-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-
> vmm-mib-03: (with COMMENT)
> 
> > Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html