Subject: [midcom] A few comments on the Midcom MIB-00

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 02:04:25 -0500

hi

I started to review the Midcom MIB, but it was suggested that I wait until
the next version. I figured I might as well send in the comments I generated
from the first few pages of the ID:

1. In the Overview section, how do the managed objects described in the
third paragraph relate to the solution described in the second paragraph?
This connection has not been made.

2. In section 3.1, on Terminology, it would be good to tell us what RFCXXXX
is. Right now I have no idea what document you are referring to, but even
after it is published, I think including the title of the RFC would greatly
increase readability.

3. In section 3.1 in Terminology, it might be worth noting that the latest
terminology in SNMP is 'SNMP entity' and using this should clarify things
for you. See section 2.1 in RFC3410. You could then indicate that the Midcom
SNMP Entity acts in both the manager and agent roles, or something along
those lines.

4. In section 4, the first paragraph, I might suggest something more along
the lines of "This memo describes a method of using managing Midcom in SNMP
and also provides the necessary MIB objects to support this method."

Sharon Chisholm
Portfolio Integration
Nortel Networks
Ottawa, Canada

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:40:16 +0100

Hi Sharon,

Thanks for the first comments. For the remaining part of the document I 
recommend to really wait for the upcoming version.

|
| 1. In the Overview section, how do the managed objects described in the
| third paragraph relate to the solution described in the second paragraph?
| This connection has not been made.

Actually I'm not sure to what you refer. Could please cite the paragraphs 
by email?

|
| 2. In section 3.1, on Terminology, it would be good to tell us what
| RFCXXXX is. Right now I have no idea what document you are referring to,
| but even after it is published, I think including the title of the RFC
| would greatly increase readability.

See Section 11 References: RFCXXX is the MIDCOM semantics document that is 
currently in IESG review.

|
| 3. In section 3.1 in Terminology, it might be worth noting that the latest
| terminology in SNMP is 'SNMP entity' and using this should clarify things
| for you. See section 2.1 in RFC3410. You could then indicate that the
| Midcom SNMP Entity acts in both the manager and agent roles, or something
| along those lines.

We have actually chosen (after long discussions) MIDCOM client for 
clarification. I feel that this brings it to the point, but MIDCOM SNMP 
entity will confuse readers even more (considering that they like more 
MIDCOM-folks)

|
| 4. In section 4, the first paragraph, I might suggest something more along
| the lines of "This memo describes a method of using managing Midcom in
| SNMP and also provides the necessary MIB objects to support this method."
|

Why do you think it is not appropriate? I have problems to follow your 
suggestion "...using managing Midcom in SNMP". This sounds rather confusing 
for me.
Here is the original excerpt:
"In order to realize middlebox communication as described in RFC XXXX,
several aspects and properties of the MIDCOM protocol need to be
mapped to SNMP capabilities and expressed in terms of the Structure
of Management Information version 2 (SMIv2)."

  Martin

|
| Sharon Chisholm
| Portfolio Integration
| Nortel Networks
| Ottawa, Canada
|
| _______________________________________________
| midcom mailing list
| [email-masked]
| https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:57:01 +0100

Sharon,

Thanks a lot for your comments!

> This connection has not been made.

I see your point.  We sill state more clearly in the next version
that the managed objects implement the solution described in the
second paragraph.

> after it is published, I think including the title of the RFC would greatly

We use RFCXXXX in several places of this document as placeholder for the
RFC that contains the MIDCOM semantics.  RFCXXX is used consistently and
you'll find this reference resolved in the references section.

RFCXXX is currently under IESG review.  We will replace it with the correct
number, if the RFC is published before we enter WG last call.  Otherwise
we will ad a note for the RFC editor to replace RFCXXX with the appropriate
number.

> SNMP Entity acts in both the manager and agent roles, or something along

The problem we are resolving here is that the MIDCOM agent includes an SNMP
entity with management applications.  Using the term "agent" for this
entity cause complaints from the SNMP community, because even RFC3410
acknowledges "agent" as the term traditionally used for SNMP entities
which provides remote access to management instrumentation.  Therefore,
we decided to avoid using the term 'MIDCOM agent' and replaced it by
'MIDCOM client'.

The term 'SNMP agent' or just 'agent' is used about 25 times in the document.
I do not think the document will become easier to read if we replace all
these instances by 'SNMP entity which provides remote access to management instrumentation' as suggested by RFC 3410.  Please note that we cannot just
use 'SNMP entity, because we are discussing both roles, the manager and the
agent role.

> and also provides the necessary MIB objects to support this method."

Good point! We will use a phrase like the one you suggested as introduction
to this section.  But please forgive us if we do not use your phrasing
without modifications ;-)

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]        Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.ccrle.nec.de