[Bridge-mib] comments on draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

I briefly looked at the SMIv2 version of the MIB and found the
following issues:

- I suggest to not use lines consisting of just hyphens in the
  comments as it is tricky to use the right number of hyphens and
  others may take this as an example for getting it wrong.

- InterfaceIndex must be imported from IF-MIB.

- There is a double "" at the end of the REFERENCE clause of
  dot1dStpPriority.

I also checked the changes using smidiff and found the following
issues:

- You only want to have REVISION clauses for published MIB - not for
  each interim version.

- You replaced the MacAddress definition with the definition from
  SNMPv2-TC - which is in principal OK. However, other MIBs might
  import this from BRIDGE-MIB - so you should name this change in the
  DESCRIPTION clause of the revision statement.

- You changed the access of dot1dBasePort from read-only to
  not-accessible which I think is problematic since fielded
  implementations implement it as read-only.

- The added text in the description of dot1dStpTopChanges does not
  read well.

- Text added to the DESRIPTION of dot1dStpPortPriority says that legal
  values are 0-240, in steps of 16. However, the SYNTAX says this is
  Integer32 (0..255).

- The DESCRIPTION of dot1dStpPortPathCost says that permissible values
  must be extended beyond what the SYNTAX allows. What is the deal?
  Fix this now?

- The access of dot1dTpFdbAddress changed from read-only to
  not-accessible which I think is problematic since fielded
  implementations implement it as read-only.

- The access of dot1dStaticAddress changed from read-create to
  not-accessible which I think is problematic since fielded
  implementations implement it as read-create.

- dot1dStaticReceivePort is of type Integer32 (1..65535) while text
  in the DESCRIPTION talks about the special value 0.

- The access of dot1dStaticReceivePort changed from read-create to
  not-accessible which I think is problematic since fielded
  implementations implement it as read-only.

- Should dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo not have an upper length limit?
  Assuming you can not have more than 65535 ports, the upper limit
  would be 8192, e.g. (SIZE (0..8192)).

- Should the columns in the dot1dStaticTable not in general be
  read-create rather than read-write? Does it make sense to describe
  in sentence how you actually create new entries via management
  operations?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Muehlenpfordtstr. 23, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>



_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib