Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) Management Information Base (MIB) for Address Family Transition Routers (AFTRs)
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-06-13
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-05-18
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-05-04
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-05-04
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA |
2016-05-04
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-04-29
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-04-29
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2016-04-28
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-04-28
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on ADs |
2016-03-11
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IANA from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-03-09
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-01-15
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on ADs from In Progress |
2016-01-12
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-01-12
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-01-12
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-01-12
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-01-12
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2016-01-12
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-01-12
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-01-12
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-01-03
|
15 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-15.txt |
2015-12-22
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-12-20
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-12-20
|
14 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-14.txt |
2015-12-17
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-12-17
|
13 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Let me append my COMMENT. Since the companion MIB document didn't compile (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib/ballot/#benoit-claise) , I made some extra test with this … [Ballot comment] Let me append my COMMENT. Since the companion MIB document didn't compile (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib/ballot/#benoit-claise) , I made some extra test with this MIB module. Thanks for addressing Dave Thaler's recommendations. The only point that looks under specified to me is: dsliteNATBindMappingExtAddressType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Address type for the mapping's external address. A value other than IPv4(1) would be unexpected." ::= { dsliteNATBindEntry 4 } dsliteNATBindMappingIntAddressType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Address type of the mapping's internal address. A value other than ipv4z(3) would be unexpected." ::= { dsliteNATBindEntry 8 } What does it mean: "other value would be unexpected"? Is this allowed or not? timeout 10 smilint -s -e -l 6 -p mibs/NATV2-MIB mibs/DSLite-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/NATV2-MIB:368: warning: identifier `natv2SubscriberIndex' differs from `Natv2SubscriberIndex' only in case mibs/NATV2-MIB:109: info: previous definition of `Natv2SubscriberIndex' mibs/NATV2-MIB:805: warning: identifier `natv2InstanceIndex' differs from `Natv2InstanceIndex' only in case mibs/NATV2-MIB:135: info: previous definition of `Natv2InstanceIndex' mibs/NATV2-MIB:1689: warning: identifier `natv2PoolIndex' differs from `Natv2PoolIndex' only in case mibs/NATV2-MIB:153: info: previous definition of `Natv2PoolIndex' mibs/NATV2-MIB:2074: warning: `InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAddressType' object mibs/NATV2-MIB:2087: warning: `InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAddressType' object mibs/DSLite-MIB:72: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object identifier element `xxx' name only allowed as first element mibs/DSLite-MIB:29: [2] {module-identity-registration} illegal module identity registration mibs/DSLite-MIB:118: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `dsliteTunnelEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 392 subidentifier(s) mibs/DSLite-MIB:198: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `dsliteNATBindEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 189 subidentifier(s) mibs/DSLite-MIB:681: [5] {notification-not-reversible} warning: notification `dsliteTunnelNumAlarm' is not reverse mappable mibs/DSLite-MIB:692: [5] {notification-not-reversible} warning: notification `dsliteAFTRUserSessionNumAlarm' is not reverse mappable mibs/DSLite-MIB:712: [5] {notification-not-reversible} warning: notification `dsliteAFTRPortUsageOfSpecificIpAlarm' is not reverse mappable mibs/DSLite-MIB:5: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier `Gauge32' imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' is never used mibs/DSLite-MIB:5: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier `TimeTicks' imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' is never used mibs/DSLite-MIB:13: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier `DisplayString' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used You could take care of the last 3 warnings. Also, I inquired about the "notification X is not reverse mappable" to the MIB-doctors. Here is Jürgen Schönwälder's answer: SNMPv1 identifies notifications in a different way that SNMPv2c/SNMPv3 does and SMIv2 notification definitions are reverse mappable if they are registered OID.0.X and smilint generates this warning if they are not. This is the reason why the generally suggestion MIB OID layout has a notifications branch registered with the subidentifier 0. The MIB module in question has dsliteNotifications OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { dsliteMIB 0 } dsliteTraps OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { dsliteNotifications 1 } and the notification registered below dsliteTraps. I do not think this serves any purpose - if authors would simply follow RFC 4181 appendix D the problem would not show up. (And in general, we talk about notifications not traps in SMIv2.) See also section 4.7 of RFC 4181. Authors, please improve your MIB module to be compliant with RFC 4181. Regards, Benoit |
2015-12-17
|
13 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2015-12-17
|
13 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-12-17
|
13 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-12-17
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-12-17
|
13 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing Dave Thaler's recommendations. The only point that looks under specified to me is: dsliteNATBindMappingExtAddressType OBJECT-TYPE … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing Dave Thaler's recommendations. The only point that looks under specified to me is: dsliteNATBindMappingExtAddressType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Address type for the mapping's external address. A value other than IPv4(1) would be unexpected." ::= { dsliteNATBindEntry 4 } dsliteNATBindMappingIntAddressType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Address type of the mapping's internal address. A value other than ipv4z(3) would be unexpected." ::= { dsliteNATBindEntry 8 } What does it mean: "other value would be unexpected"? Is this allowed or not? Note: I have recompiled the MIB, I trust you on this point. Regards, Benoit |
2015-12-17
|
13 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-12-16
|
13 | Matthew Miller | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Matthew Miller. |
2015-12-16
|
13 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-13.txt |
2015-12-15
|
12 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] mib doctor review will cause a substantial revision. |
2015-12-15
|
12 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot comment text updated for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-12-14
|
12 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-12-10
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2015-12-10
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2015-12-10
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Terry Manderson | Telechat date has been changed to 2015-12-17 from 2015-12-03 |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot discuss] As mentioned by Dave Thaler in his MIB doctor review: I was assigned to do the MIB doctor review of this document, since … [Ballot discuss] As mentioned by Dave Thaler in his MIB doctor review: I was assigned to do the MIB doctor review of this document, since I previously did an early review of -03. My full comments are in the marked up copy at http://research.microsoft.com/~dthaler/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-12.pdf Below is a summary of the issues called out therein. Substantive issues: 1) RFC 4001 requires each InetAddress object to explicitly state which other InetAddressType object indicates the type. None of the objects in this document do so. RFC 7659 (the NATv2 MIB) does, and can be used as an example. 2) dsliteNATBindEntry includes dsliteTunnelStartAddPreLen in the INDEX. To confirm this was intended: Can you really have 2 entries that have all other INDEX values the same and differ only in the prefix length? 3) dsliteNATBindTable states that it extends natv2PortMapTable in RFC 7659, but rather than reusing the not-accessible objects from that table in its own INDEX clause, it defines its own. That’s fine, but it is then not clear whether each such object in the dsliteNATBindTable INDEX needs to match a corresponding value in the natv2PortMapTable INDEX, or whether there can be additional entries that do not appear in the natv2PortMapTable. This should be clarified. 4) Many objects in that table, such as dsliteNATBindMappingIntRealm, have very terse DESCRIPTIONs, whereas the DESCRIPTION of the corresponding object in the natv2PortMapTable is quite detailed. Hence this draft is far less clear than RFC 7659, since this draft has no such language. 5) Objects of type InetAddress incorrectly have a REFERENCE clause pointing to the definition of the InetAddress TC. REFERENCE clauses should be used to point to the spec defining the semantics, rather than the syntax. For example, dsliteNATBindMappingIntAddress is incorrect, whereas the corresponding object in RFC 7659 (natv2AddressMapInternalAddressType) is correct and points into the DS-Lite RFC (RFC 6333). 6) I didn’t understand DsliteNATBindEntry at all. Its dsliteNATBindMappingMapBehavior object has a value addressAndPortDependent(2) which “maps to a separate external address and port combination for each different destination address and port combination reached through the same external realm”. However, the external port is in the INDEX clause and the destination address does not appear to be in the table at all. Since the 0 value for the external port already has a different special meaning, it can’t be 0 either. So I don’t understand how this table can work. 7) dsliteAFTRAlarmProtocolType is underspecified. It’s a string, but the description is very confusing as to what the legal string values are, making it sound more like an INTEGER was intended. (“This object indicate the protocol type of alarm, 0:tcp,1:udp,2:icmp,3:total”) E.g., does that mean the string is “0:tcp” or “0” or “tcp” or what? 8) The dsliteStatisticTransmitted object seems to combine sent + received packets into a single counter with a name that implies only one direction. This is confusing, especially since most other MIB modules separate sent vs received into different counters. 9) dsliteAFTRUserSessionNumAlarm and dsliteAFTRPortUsageOfSpecificIpAlarm both refer to “the threshold” without stating what threshold that is. There doesn’t seem to be any such threshold object in this MIB module or elsewhere that I could find. 10) dsliteAFTRAlarmScalarGroup is mandatory and requires read-write access. But a lesson learned from the NAT MIB (and many other MIBs) is that many people don’t want write support in their MIB modules. Does the WG really feel that write support is required in all implementations? I’d recommend also having a read-only compliance statement, as is done in many other MIB modules. 11) The security considerations section uses the correct boilerplate for sensitive read-only objects, which includes “These are the tables and objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability”. However it then only lists the tables/objects and contains no discussion of their sensitivity/vulnerability. This is required in order to comply with MIB review guidelines in RFC 4181. 12) Per discussion on MIB Doctors, the root OID should probably not be { transmission xxx }, since that space usually implies that xxx is an ifType (not tunnel type) value. BENOIT: as discussed with the MIB Doctors, it should be under mib-2. 13) A number of undefined terms are used that I could not find in the DS-Lite RFC (6333) either, e.g., connection, session, etc. As such, I couldn’t tell what was meant, and whether there were issues with the meaning. At minimum, REFERENCE clauses should be added to point to a specific section of a document that defines the terms. |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Editorial issues: 14) The title, abstract, MIB module name, etc. all say the MIB module is for managing DS-Lite, but DS-Lite has two … [Ballot comment] Editorial issues: 14) The title, abstract, MIB module name, etc. all say the MIB module is for managing DS-Lite, but DS-Lite has two roles: AFTR and B4, and this document only instruments the AFTR. Hence I would really recommend putting AFTR in the title, abstract, and name. 15) There are a bunch of editorial issues (grammar, typos) that should be cleaned up before publication. 16) In a number of places, it seems to refer to some objects in some MIB module, whether this document or RFC 7659, without stating the name of the object so it is not clear which object was meant. 17) The document still refers to draft-perrault-behave-natv2-mib and should be RFC 7659. And finally, I don't see the value of this sentence. "When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119] key words." I believe we should favor text consistency across documents. |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Matthew Miller | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Matthew Miller. |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] This may be because this is not my area, but it wasn't immediately obvious what is meant by "the number of the current … [Ballot comment] This may be because this is not my area, but it wasn't immediately obvious what is meant by "the number of the current IPv4 Session" and "the number of the current IPv6 Session." Is that an internal identifier for statistics-gathering purposes? If you think it's worth clarifying, feel free. |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-11-30
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-11-30
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-11-25
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2015-11-25
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2015-11-24
|
12 | Yu Fu | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2015-11-24
|
12 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-12.txt |
2015-11-20
|
11 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed. Reviewer: DENG Hui. |
2015-11-20
|
11 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. |
2015-11-20
|
11 | (System) | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-12-03 |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Ballot has been issued |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-11-15
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-11-12
|
11 | Matthew Miller | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Matthew Miller. |
2015-11-12
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-11-12
|
11 | Michelle Cotton | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has questions about the actions to be completed for this document: 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 The document requests a new MIB will be registered as follows: Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ] Name: DSLite-MIB Description: Dual Stack Lite References: [ RFC-to-be ] QUESTION TO AUTHORS: We want to be absolutely sure where this mib assignment goes. In the IANA Considerations section of the document, it mentions the IANAtunneltype and also transmission. We see 2 TBDs in the form of DSLite-MIB { transmission XXX } dsLite ("XX") -- dslite tunnel Can you clarify the exact request for assignment and which registry? 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. |
2015-11-10
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen |
2015-11-10
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen |
2015-11-05
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2015-11-05
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2015-11-05
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2015-11-05
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib@ietf.org, softwires@ietf.org, softwire-chairs@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, terry.manderson@icann.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib@ietf.org, softwires@ietf.org, softwire-chairs@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, terry.manderson@icann.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (DS-Lite Management Information Base (MIB)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to consider the following document: - 'DS-Lite Management Information Base (MIB)' 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 2015-11-15. 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 using with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it defines managed objects for Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite). The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Last call was requested |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Carlos Pignataro performed an INT Area review: Hi, I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit … Carlos Pignataro performed an INT Area review: Hi, I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/intarea.html. This document defines MIB objects to manage DS-Lite solutions, and targets the Standards Track. Please find some minor review comments: 5. Difference from the IP tunnel MIB and NATV2-MIB Notes: According to section 5.2 of [RFC6333], DS-Lite only defines IPv4 in IPv6 tunnels at this moment, but other types of encapsulation could be defined in the future. So this DS-Lite MIB only supports IP in IP encapsulation, if another RFC defined other tunnel types in the future, this DS-Lite MIB will be updated then. CMP: Should the above say that this only supports IPv4-in-IPv6? The implementation of the IP Tunnel MIB is required for DS-Lite. The tunnelIfEncapsMethod in the tunnelIfEntry should be set to dsLite("xx"), and a corresponding entry in the DS-Lite module will exist for every tunnelIfEntry with this tunnelIfEncapsMethod. The tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress must be set to "::”. CMP: Might be useful to add that this is because the tunnel is not point-to-point. dsliteAFTRAlarmConnectNumber OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (60..90) MAX-ACCESS read-write CMP: Has this been checked? https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html 9. Security Considerations There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB module with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. CMP: I only saw one read-write and no read-create. Are there “a number of …”? 12.2. Informative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . CMP: Why is RFC 2119 Informative? I hope these are useful! Thanks, — Carlos. |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Hui Deng performed a INT area review Hi, I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit … Hui Deng performed a INT area review Hi, I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/intarea.html. This document defines MIB objects to manage DS-Lite solutions, and targets the Standards Track. Please find some minor review comments: 1) As the coordination with the NATv2-MIB (the draft has not published), the MIB checker reports several errors in this DS-Lite MIB. 2) In section 6.1.1, “Because some objects defined in the IP Tunnel MIB are not read-write and read-only, a few new objects are defined in DS- Lite MIB.” What is the “read-write” and “read-only”? If it is a special meaning words in MIB, it need a quotation mark here. 3) In page 8, “dsliteTunnelAddressType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION " This object MUST be set to the value of ipv6(2). It describes the address type of the IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel initiator and endpoint." ::= { dsliteTunnelEntry 1 }” There’s no scenario requiring ipv6z(4)? It needs a REFERENCE to RFC 4001 in this object definition. 4) In page 10, DsliteNATBindEntry: I think dsliteNATBindMappingExtAddressType and dsliteNATBindMappingIntAddressType should just be dsliteNATBindMappingAddressType and apply to both. If all address objects in the row are of the same type, you only need one type object. 5) In page 11, it needs a REFERENCE to RFC 4001 in the definition of dsliteNATBindMappingExtPort. 6) In page 12, it need some description to describe “endpointIndependent, addressDependent, addressAndPortDependent” in more detail in the DESCRIPTION of dsliteNATBindMappingMapBehavior. The same comments to the “arbitrary, paired” in dsliteMATBindMappingAddressPooling. A REFERENCE is also needed. 7) In page 14, it needs to define a DEFVAL value for dsliteAFTRAlarmConnectionNumber. 8) Whether dsliteStatisticSubscriberIdex is enough or direct to get subscribers' information? 9) I am not very sure what is dsliteStatisticIpv6Session mean? As for IPv6 traffic, there seems no mapping. 10)Whether there has requirement to support multiple instances in DS-Lite? Best regards, DENG Hui |
2015-10-14
|
11 | (System) | Notify list changed from draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib.ad@ietf.org, softwire-chairs@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib.shepherd@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-10-07
|
11 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2015-10-02
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib.ad@ietf.org, softwire-chairs@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib.shepherd@ietf.org from "Yong Cui" <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn> |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Yong Cui | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? Intended status: Standards Track This document defines the MIB for DS-Lite. (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 Dual-stack Lite (DS-Lite) [RFC6333] is a transition technique that enable operators to multiplex public IPv4 addresses while provisioning only IPv6 to users. This document defines the related the Management Information Base (MIB) for using with network management protocols in the Internet community. This MIB module may be used for configuration and monitoring devices in a Dual-Stack Lite scenario. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? This document was discussed in depth and well-reviewed, including MIB doctor review. The WG achieves the consensus to publish this document. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? I'm not aware of any implementation for the MIB. DS-Lite is an important protocol for IPv4/IPv6 coexistence, while its MIB should be the basis to support the management of DS-Lite. The document has addressed all the concerns raised by the WG and the MIB Doctor. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Softwire co-chair, Yong Cui, is the Document Shepherd. Terry Manderson is the Responsible AD. (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 is well writen and ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. No. (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. N/A (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. Yes. (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 issue. (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 WG consensus is achieved and all of the related active participants agree on the advancement of this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No errors, flaws or warnings. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. MIB Doctor has reviewed the document and then the document has been revised accordingly. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (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? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (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. No. (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). This document needs new IANA-assigned OBJECT IDENTIFIER and new IANA-assigned tunnelType. (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. N/A. (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. The automated check shows some issues because some definitions in this document depend on draft-perrault-behave-natv2-mib-05, which is now in the RFC Editor Queue. So we can ignore the issues. |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Yong Cui | Responsible AD changed to Terry Manderson |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Yong Cui | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Yong Cui | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Yong Cui | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Yong Cui | Changed document writeup |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Yong Cui | Notification list changed to "Yong Cui" <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn> |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Yong Cui | Document shepherd changed to Yong Cui |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Yong Cui | Tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised cleared. |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Yong Cui | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-09-30
|
11 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11.txt |
2015-09-24
|
10 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-10.txt |
2015-03-25
|
09 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-09.txt |
2015-02-08
|
08 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-08.txt |
2014-12-29
|
07 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-07.txt |
2014-07-02
|
06 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-06.txt |
2014-04-28
|
05 | Sheng Jiang | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-05.txt |
2013-11-04
|
04 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-04.txt |
2013-11-02
|
03 | Suresh Krishnan | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2013-11-02
|
03 | Suresh Krishnan | Annotation tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised set. |
2013-08-28
|
03 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-03.txt |
2013-05-23
|
02 | Suresh Krishnan | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-02-25
|
02 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02.txt |
2013-01-10
|
01 | Yu Fu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-01.txt |
2012-07-16
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-00.txt |