Entity MIB (Version 3)
draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07

[Ballot comment]
Section 1 says:

"MIB objects are generally accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)"

Shouldn't a reference to the SNMP protocol spec (which appears to be RFC 3416) be included?

[Ballot discuss]
Minor, but should be fixed.  The document currently says:

entPhysicalUris OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX      OCTET STRING
    MAX-ACCESS  read-write
    STATUS      current
    DESCRIPTION
            "This object contains additional identification information
            about the physical entity. The object contains URIs and
            therefore the syntax of this object must conform to RFC
            2396, section 2.

            Multiple URIs may be present and are separated by white
            space characters. Leading and trailing white space
            characters are ignored.

            If no additional identification information is known or
            supported about the physical entity the object is not
            instantiated.  A zero length octet string may also be
            returned in this case."
    REFERENCE
            "RFC 2396, Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
            Syntax, section 2, August 1998."

This should be updated to the new URI RFC and a pointer to the
appropriate syntax restrcitions.  This text also does not limit
the types of URIs which may be present.  If they are limited,
an enumerated list should be included.

The document also uses "CLEI URI" to refer to a URN in the CLEI
namepsace.  That's technically correct, but it would be easier
to understand if CLEI URN was used.  Here's an example:

    The entPhysicalUris object may be used to encode for example a URI
    containing a Common Language Equipment Identifier (CLEI) URI for
    the managed physical entity. The URN name space for CLEIs is
    defined in [RFC CLEIURN], and the CLEI format is defined in
    [T1.213][T1.213a]. 

Simply swapping out (CLEI) URI for (CLEI) URN would be fine.

IANA Last Call Comments:
We understand this document to have no IANA Actions.  This document makes use of a mib-2 number that was assigned by a different document.

AD-review (posted to WG list):
-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 22:52
To: 'entmib@ietf.org'
Subject: AD Review: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt


Here are mY AD review comments:

1. SMICng says:

    C:\bwijnen\smicng\work>smicng entmibv3.inc
    W: f(entmibv3.mi2), (655,17) Item "entPhysicalUris" should
        have SIZE specified

    *** 0 errors and 1 warning in parsing

  It might be good to add a SIZE to that object.

2. I see on Page 63:
    It is recommended that the implementers consider the security
    features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework.  Specifically, the
    use of the User-based Security Model RFC 2574 [RFC2574] and the
    View-based Access Control Model RFC 2575 [RFC2575] is recommended.

  I thought I had commented before, that the citations to RFC2574/75
  probably should be changed into RFC3414/15

3. W.r.t. references and citations I find:

    !! Missing citation for Normative reference:
    P063 L034: [RFC2026]

    !! Missing Reference for citation: [RFC2574]
    P062 L033:      use of the User-based Security Model RFC
      2574 [RFC2574] and the

    !! Missing Reference for citation: [RFC2575]
    P062 L034:      View-based Access Control Model RFC 2575
      [RFC2575] is recommended.


  The last 2 probably because you did update the references section
  but not the citation (as per point 2 above)

  I see: [RFC CLEIURN] on page 11 and [RFCCLEIURN] on page 12
  They probably should be the same as teh reference:
  [RFCCLEIURN]

You may consider this as IETF Last Call comments,
together with the comment from Subra from last week.

so pls do not issue a new rev yet.

Bert

----Original Message-----
From: entmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:entmib-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf
Of Subrahmanya Hegde
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 03:35
To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Cc: entmib@ietf.org; i-d-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Entmib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt


Hi
  Section 2.12.3 specifies
...
Note that this table is deprecated in
      version 3 of the Entity MIB.

this comment is related to entLPMappingTable .
But it appears entLPMappingTable is not deprecated..
I think the comment need to be removed

Subra

Document finished IETF Last Call with a comment from Sharon Chisholm
explaining that she does not agree with deprecating all the tables.
She also presented that at IETF60 entmib wg meeting.
WG chair withdrew doc from AD/IESG table and we expect a new submission
but then for Proposed Standard with less tables deprecated.

From IETF58 entmib meeting:

Alias Mapping Table - not enough implementations reported. Do we
deprecate now or wait for more reports? RFC2737 has been out for years,
and it has been implemented, but we don't have reports. Will deprecate -
Bert can add dire warning to IETF last call.