Subject: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-07

From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 19:32:22 +0900

Dear Tsuno/Zhang
      Thanks for waiting. The review of
  draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-07 follows.

Glenn

C1. Abstract:
     The draft now defines 2 MIB modules.  Please revise the abstract
     and probably the title of the document too.

C2. The MIBs (L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB, L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB) compile OK.
     (Three {type-unref} warnings are there, may be ignored.)

C3. Page 4:
       s/3.  Summary of MIB Module/
         3.  Summary of MIB Modules/

C4. Page 6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer DESCRIPTION
       s/"Denotes a pointer to the row pertaining to a table entry/
        /"This textual convention represents a pointer to a row in
         the table represented by the following object of type
         L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType./

C5. Page 7: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer DESCRIPTION
         The explanation in the last paragraph seems out of place.
         It may be removed.

C6  Page 7: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType DESCRIPTION
         it is unclear when the value 'null(0)' will be used.
         Is this allowed only when the corresponding object of type
         L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer has a value that is a
         zero-length string ? If yes, please make that clear.

C7. Page 9: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable DESCRIPTION
         s/created by a PE router/maintained by a PE router/

C8. Page 12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
          Do you really want to keep this object in L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.
          It will change every time a new "tunnel type" is added to
          L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType. That will defeat the purpose
          of separating L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB from L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB
          It may be a good idea to define a textual convention like
              L2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
          in the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB and use that textual convention
          in the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB

C9. Page 13: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId DESCRIPTION
A.       s/Thus, the size of this object is 16 octets in IPv4/
            Thus, the size of this object is 8 octets in IPv4/
B.       The last 2 paragraphs do not tie up well with the previous
          paragraphs in the DESCRIPTION.
C.       In the last paragraph
          "this object is a pair of source and group IP addresses"
          is unlcear. Please clarify.

C10. Page 15: Security Considerations
          I would think that any field that reveals information about
          a Multicast VPN and/or its members is sensitive.
          Does the l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId field reveal
          information about the participating members? If yes, it must
          be marked as sensitive.

C11. Editorial:

A. This does not pertain to the MIBs as such,
    but I am uncomfortable with the  several variations
    of the phrase
    "Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (VPN)
     that support multicast"
    that appears in the text. I do not have a solution
    on hand but it would be perhaps be more readable to
    define and use a simple name/notation the beast for
    which the MIB is being designed (e.g. "L2L3VPNMCast").

B. Same with the phrase
     "Layer 2 (L2) and Layer 3 (L3) VPN (Virtual Private
      Network)
     it would be probably be easier on the reader if an
     abbreviation like L2L3VPNs was used where ever
     applicable.

C12. P2:Para4: s/within MIB module specifications//;

C13. General:
A.      The DESCRIPTION clauses could do would some more
         packing. (Too much space at the end of lines)
B.      Please check the articles a/an/the once again. Some
         usages do not seem right to me.

---

From: Hiroshi Tsunoda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:44:14 +0200

Dear Glenn,

Thank you very much for your thorough review.
I have greatly appreciated it.

I am going to check and update the draft taking into
account your comments.
I try to submit the updated draft by the end of next week.

Best regards,

-- tsuno

---

From: Hiroshi Tsunoda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:25:14 +0200

Dear Glenn,

Thank you for your thorough review and waiting for the updated.

I posted a new revision taking into account your latest comments.
In the new revision, all of your comments are addressed.
I also revised the draft to improve the readability.

Please see some notes below.

URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-08.txt
Htmlized(1):
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-08
Htmlized(2):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-08
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-08

>>     and probably the title of the document too.

Fixed.

>>     (Three {type-unref} warnings are there, may be ignored.)

I have confirmed that the latest version of MIB modules can also be
compiled successfully.

>>         3.  Summary of MIB Modules/

Fixed.

>>         L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType./

Fixed.

>>         The explanation in the last paragraph seems out of place.

Fixed.

>>         zero-length string ? If yes, please make that clear.

'null(0)' is the default value and indicates that the corresponding
L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer object is not assigned.
In the new revision, this point is described clearly.

>>         s/created by a PE router/maintained by a PE router/

Fixed.

>>          in the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB

Thank you for your suggestion. I revised the definition according to
your suggestion.

>>            Thus, the size of this object is 8 octets in IPv4/

Fixed.

>>          paragraphs in the DESCRIPTION.

Those 2 paragraphs are removed in the new revision.

>>          is unlcear. Please clarify.

Fixed. In the new revision, this point is described as follows.

"the corresponding Tunnel Identifier is composed of
the source IP address and the group IP address."

>>          information about the participating members? If yes, it must

I revised this point according to your suggestion.

>>     abbreviation like L2L3VPNs was used where ever

Thank you for your comments.
In the new reivsion the abbreviation "L2L3VPNMCast"
is defined and used throughout the draft.

>> C12. P2:Para4: s/within MIB module specifications//;

Fixed.

>>         usages do not seem right to me.

Fixed.

Sincerely yours,

-- tsuno

---

From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 07:34:46 +0900

Dear Tsuno,
      Thanks for the good work.
I will review and get back to you.

Glenn