Precision Time Protocol Version 2 (PTPv2) Management Information Base
draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-12

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for the work, and happy to approve this document. But before doing so, I wanted to briefly discuss whether all points from Peter Yee's Gen-ART review have been answered, particularly the one about copying text.

[Ballot discuss]
As stressed by Dan Romascanu part of his MIB doctor review, clearly not ready to go

This is the MIB Doctor Review for draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-08.txt.

Note that this document has a long history. A MIB Doctor review was performed already by Bert Wijnen back in 2011.

I do not believe that this document is ready for approval in its current form.

Here are my findings.



1.      PARSING

Using smilint:

smistrip -d mibs docs/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-08.txt

timeout 10 smilint -s -e -l 5 mibs/PTPBASE-MIB 2>report.txt

You can access any intermediately created files, the processing report (which might be empty if no errors or warnings have been found), and output files (in case of a conversion request) for reading and download from a temporary server directory for approx. 24 hours.

While processing your request the following errors and/or warnings have been found:

mibs/PTPBASE-MIB:426: [2] {bad-identifier-case} `XXX' should start with a lower case letter

mibs/PTPBASE-MIB:426: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object identifier element `XXX' name only allowed as first element

mibs/PTPBASE-MIB:26: [2] {module-identity-registration} illegal module identity registration

Using smicng (thanks to Bert Wijnen):

C:\bw\smicng\work>smicng ptpbase.inc

Successful parsing



C:\bw\smicng\work>



**** now setup for STRICT checking:



C:\bw\smicng\work>smicstrict



C:\bw\smicng\work>smicng ptpbase.inc

W: f(rfc2863.mi2), (274,17) Item "ifPhysAddress" should have SIZE specified

E: f(rfc2863.mi2), (1092,23) Index item "ifRcvAddressAddress" must be defined with syntax that includes a SIZE

W: f(rfc2863.mi2), (1084,1) Row "ifRcvAddressEntry" has indexing that may create variables with more than 128 sub-ids

W: f(rfc2863.mi2), (1103,17) Item "ifRcvAddressAddress" should have SIZE specified

W: f(rfc2863.mi2), (1146,15) Variable "ifIndex" in notification "linkDown" is an index for a table

W: f(rfc2863.mi2), (1158,15) Variable "ifIndex" in notification "linkUp" is an index for a table

W: f(rfc2863.mi2), (1691,1) OBJECT-GROUP "ifOldObjectsGroup" is not used in a MODULE-COMPLIANCE in current module

E: f(ptpbase.mi2), (413,19) Sub-Id for item "ptpbaseMIB" must be "number" or "name(number)" format



*** 2 errors and 6 warnings in parsing



C:\bw\smicng\work>



As the two errors refer to the RFC 2863 module rather than to the PTBASE-MIB: the compilation seems clean.

2.      TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS are prefixed differently than the MIB objects. This is not forbidden, but it creates inconsistency. Also the prefix ‘Clock’ for the TCs hints to a more generic functionality, although the TCs seem to be PTP-related. I would suggest prefixing the TCs also with PTP or Ptp

3.      The following TC

ClockIdentity ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION

    STATUS          current

    DESCRIPTION

        "The clock Identity is an 8-octet array...

    REFERENCE      "Section 7.5.2.2.1 from [IEEE

    SYNTAX          OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255))

If this is 8-Octet why is the OCTET STRING size 255?

4.      I see in the Abstract:

  This memo specifies a MIB module in a manner that is both compliant
  to the SNMPv2 SMI, and semantically identical to the peer SNMPv1
  definitions.



Do you actually mean SMIv2 rather than SNMPv2 SMI? I am not sure why this is important, but if this is important, please provide a reference to the document that includes the ‘peer SNMPv1’ definitions (probably SMIv1)



5.      Most of the document speaks about PTP, but in the DESCRIPTION clause at page 7 it mentions:



        [IEEE 1588-2008] defines a protocol enabling precise
        synchronization of clocks in measurement and control systems
        implemented with packet-based networks, the Precision Time
        Protocol Version 2 (PTPv2).  This MIB does not address the
        earlier version IEEE Std. 1588(TM)-2002 (PTPv1).



So, when it says ‘PTP’ does it mean PTPv2 or any version of PTP? It would be good to clarify.



6.        The document uses the improper terminology ‘MIB’ when it means MIB module. For example ‘Relationship to other Profiles and MIBs’ or ‘This MIB is intended to be used …’ etc., etc.,

7.      Idnits complains about an obsolete reference to RFC 1906:

-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1906

    (Obsoleted by RFC 3417)

8.      I do not believe that Section 3 includes any useful information.

9.      The DESCRIPTION clause is unusually long and includes a lot of abbreviations, terminology, architectural details and other pieces of information which is not clear why they need to be hardcoded in the MIB module. Maybe the place for all these is in the currently empty-content section 3?

10.  I do not understand how the ClockPortTransportTypeAddress TC works. If this TC defines an address type why is it not an enumeration? What is the string that for example indicates IPv6? Is it ‘IPv6’? who guarantees that a manager and an agent spell the same? Or is the intention to use the list of identifiers for ‘Well Known transport types for PTP communication’at page 64? If yes, how is this extended? Probably an IANA maintained enumerated TC would be a better solution. 

11.  Why is not the SYNTAX of ClockQualityClassType an enumeration, when the DESCRIPTION indicates clearly that this is an enumeration.

12.  I do not understand how ClockTimeInterval works. The example does not help either. It says ‘For example, 2.5 ns is expressed as 0000 0000 0002 8000 in Base16.’ and than the SYNTAX is

SYNTAX          OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255))

What is the STRING for the object in this example?

13.  For objects like ptpDomainIndex there is no need to copy again the possible values in the DESCRIPTION clause, because these are already listed in the TC.

14.  Why is ptpDomainClockPortsTotal of SYNTAX Gauge32? Does this value change all the time? Does it latch at a max value?

15.  There is no indication of behavior for counter discontinuity, or object for counter discontinuity – see section 4.6.1.2 in RFC 4181

16.  Why is the SYNATX of ptpbaseClockTransDefaultDSNumOfPorts Counter32? This does not seem to be a counter, but an unsigned integer.

17.  The DESCRIPTION clause of the ptpbaseClockPortDSPTPVersion objects reads: "This object specifies the PTP version being used.” However, the DESCRIPTION clause of the MIB module says that this module refers only to PTPv2. So what does this object stand for? And in any case, how is this coded? (1) for v1 and (2) for v2? Then why is it not an enumerated value?

18.  How does ptpbaseClockPortAssociateAddressType work? What would be included under the AutonomousType SYNTAX to make possible interoperability?

19.  The Security Considerations section does not follow the template defined at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security.

[Ballot comment]
As Alissa commented, the ops wiki has recommended MIB-security section text. Specific tables/objects need to be listed for MAX-ACCESS which may be considered sensitive. Also I prefer the stronger wording (extra capitals) on use of SNMPv3. A MIB RFC in CCAMP, RFC 6825, has examples of both.

[Ballot comment]
(1) The ClockIdentity is described as being generated based on an EUI-64 address as described in IEEE 1588-2008 Section 7.5.2.2.2. But in IEEE 1588-2008, there are two different ways the clock identifier can be generated, the other being a non-EUI-64 address defined in 7.5.2.2.3. Why is that option left out of the ClockIdentity description?

In general I was dismayed to see the re-use of EUI-64 for clock identity for the security and privacy drawbacks, since it's not particularly clear that re-using those identifiers is necessary here. But if such a fix is warranted this MIB is not the place to do it in any event.

(2) Looking at https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security I recall that other MIB documents we've reviewed recently have listed out the specific tables/objects that may be considered vulnerable or sensitive, even if those objects are read-only. Why doesn't this document do that? I would think all of the clock identity objects would belong in that bucket at a minimum.

[Ballot comment]
It looks like the SecDir review may not have gotten a response.  Here's the review:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06401.html

I'm fine with the mention of this being read only as it is in the introduction and also fine with the mention of SNMPv1 and v2 in the abstract as it provides context and background.

[Ballot comment]
Is the lack of 2119 usage intentional? There is some text, especially in the security considerations, that reads as if  2119 keywords were intended, even though there is no 2119 reference and most of these are in lower case (although there is an instance of "NOT recommended" in the last paragraph of section 5.)

I'm surprised at the single normative reference, especially that there are no normative references related to SNMP or SMI.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-08.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is
a single action which IANA must complete.

In the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIBsubregistry
of the Network Management Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

a new MIB will be registered as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: ptpbaseMIB
Description: Precision Time Protocol v2
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands this to be the only action required of IANA upon
approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: tictoc-chairs@ietf.org, brian@innovationslab.net, kodonog@pobox.com, draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib@ietf.org, tictoc@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Precision Time Protocol Version 2 (PTPv2) Management Information Base) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Timing over IP Connection and
Transfer of Clock WG (tictoc) to consider the following document:
- 'Precision Time Protocol Version 2 (PTPv2) Management Information Base'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-03-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets.
  In particular, it defines objects for managing networks using
  Precision Time Protocol, specified in IEEE Std. 1588(TM)-2008.

  This memo specifies a MIB module in a manner that is both compliant
  to the SNMPv2 SMI, and semantically identical to the peer SNMPv1
  definitions.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

This document is being requested for publication as a Proposed Standard. It is a MIB for the IEEE 1588 standard, and it was developed at a time when there was no active IEEE 1588 working group.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document defines objects for managing networks using the Precision Time Protocol, specified in IEEE Std. 1588(TM)-2008. This memo specifies a MIB module in a manner that is both compliant to the SNMPv2 SMI, and semantically identical to the peer SNMPv1 definitions. This MIB is an interim solution until the IEEE 1588 Technical Committee completes its efforts.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item.

Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed and revised many times. It has been reviewed externally by members of the IEEE 1588 community and by MIB experts.

Personnel:

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.  Brian Haberman is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd has followed the working group process and reviewed the final document and feels this document is ready for IESG review.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were performed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during the IESG review process.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The Document Shepherd has no concerns or issues with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have confirmed that they have dealt with all appropriate IPR disclosures.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document represents strong WG consensus.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.

There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

ID nits were run on 13 Aug 2015 with the following results:
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).

The warning about non-RFC5735 compliant IPv4 addresses refer to paragraph numbers not IP addresses.

The document date (March 25, 2015) is 141 days in the past.  This delay was the result of the document shepherd not processing the document in a timely manner. The references to RFC 1906 are for historical context, and the IEEE 1588-2008 is a correct normative reference.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document was reviewed informally by a MIB doctor during the development process. It is still expected that there will be an official review as part of the IESG processing. 

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are tagged as normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are completed.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document does not impact any existing RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The MIB module defined in this document requests IANA to assign a ptpbaseMIB object identifier value in the smi-numbers registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new IANA registries contained in this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

This document was reviewed by MIB experts and compiled by the same MIB experts.