Subject: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:19:12 +0200

Hi, 

I have performed the AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt.
This document is in good shape and I am sending it to IETF Last Call.
Please address the comments below together with the other IETF LC
comments. 

The technical comments are marked T and the editorial comments are
marked E. 

T1. 

        Float64TC
           FROM FLOAT-TC-MIB           -- draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float

Actually will need to be published before or simultaneously with this
document, in order to satisfy the normative reference. Leaving
draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float would be confusing, we need the RFC number
here. I suggest to include here (as a comment) a note to the RFC Editor
that mentions that draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float is to be replaced with
the RFC number of that document, and the note deleted. 

T2. Why do psampSampCountBasedAvail, psampSampTimeBasedAvail,
psampSampRandOutOfNAvail, psampSampUniProbAvail,
psampFiltPropMatchAvail, psampFiltHashAvail have DEFVAL clauses? These
are read-only objects, so the values must be configured by some other
means (not by SNMP) and just read by the agent.  

T3. There is no need to include the following in the IANA considerations
section: 

           psampSampCountBased    { ipfixSelectorFunctions 2 }
           psampSampTimeBased     { ipfixSelectorFunctions 3 }
           psampSampRandOutOfN    { ipfixSelectorFunctions 4 }
           psampSampUniProb       { ipfixSelectorFunctions 5 }
           psampFiltPropMatch     { ipfixSelectorFunctions 6 }
           psampFiltHash          { ipfixSelectorFunctions 7 }

These are already assigned in the MIB module and no IANA action is
required for them. 

E1. The contents of sections 3 and 4 are similar, but the formatting of
the texts in the two sections is different. I suggest to fix this using
for section 4 the same format as in section 3, which is easier to read. 

E2. Page 5 - second paragraph s/as defiend/as defined/

E3. Please explain the meaning of each enumerated value in the
DESCRIPTION clause of psampFiltHashFunction

E4. Please detail the 'corresponding sampling function' in the
DESCRIPTION clause of each one of the conformance groups under
MODULE-COMPLIANCE. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:40:19 +0200

Hi, 

I have one more comment - please add it to the review: 

T4. As per  [I-D.ietf-opsawg-mib-floats]: 

   o  Since these textual conventions are defined in terms of the OCTET
      STRING type, the SMI's mechanisms for formally setting range
      constraints are not available.  MIB designers using these textual
      conventions will need to use DESCRIPTION clauses to spell out any
      applicable range constraints beyond those implied by the
      underlying IEEE types.

   o  Whenever these textual conventions are used in a MIB module, the
      associated DESCRIPTION clause will need to clearly specify whether
      denormalized numbers, NaNs ("not a number") or infinities are
      permitted, along with any special semantics associated with these
      cases.  This is especially important for writeable objects.

As the object psampSampUniProbProbability uses the Float64TC - these
requirements need to be taken into consideration. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:19 PM
> To: IPFIX Working Group
> Subject: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Thomas Dietz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:57:40 +0000

Hi Dan,

I am currently editing the new version of the PSAMP MIB addressing your
review comment. Please also find some comments inline in this mail.

-- 
Thomas Dietz
NEC Europe Ltd., NEC Laboratories, Network Research Division, 69115
Heidelberg, Germany

NEC Europe Limited, Registered in England 2832014
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:19 PM
> To: IPFIX Working Group

Done.

> means (not by SNMP) and just read by the agent.

The values depend on what the manufacturer of the equipment has implemented
in his hard- or software. So basically a DEFVAL cannot be given here.

> These are already assigned in the MIB module and no IANA action is

Done.

Best Regards,

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Dietz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:59:58 +0000

Hi Dan,

find comments inline.

> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:40 PM
> To: IPFIX Working Group
> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 

A range was already given in the description.

>       cases.  This is especially important for writeable objects.

I added a sentence that excludes NaN and infinity. Hope the description is
now sound.

Best Regards,

Thomas