|
Thanks Thomas for the quick turn-arounds. This helps a lot
with context-switching.
In other words, this way I can quickly re-check (as opposed to
some MIB reviews
I have done where it takes montsh for a new revision to show
up).
The SMICng check show two naming issues
left:
C:\bw\smicng\work>smicng rserpool.inc
W:
f(rserpool.mi2), (761,1) Sequence "RserpoolPoolElementEntry" and Row
"rserpoolPEEntry" should have related names
W: f(rserpool.mi2),
(1074,1) Sequence "RserpoolPoolUserEntry" and Row "rserpoolPUEntry" should have
related names
*** 0 errors and 2 warnings in parsing
Further, you claim:
> The normal setup (according to rfc4181) would be something
like:
>
>
rserpoolMIBObjects
OBJECT-IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 1 }
> rserpoolMIBConformance
OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 2 }
>
>
rserpoolENRPServers OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
rserpoolMIBObjects 1 }
>
rserpoolPoolElements OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
rserpoolMIBObjects 2 }
>
rserpoolPoolUsers
OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIBObjects 3 }
>
> Your new MIB
module has no indertation at all.
> Not a fatal flaw, but does not help in
readability.
Fixed.
But I do nto see that fix, do I ??
Bert
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:29
AM
Subject: Re: [Rserpool] Last Call:
draft-ietf-rserpool-mib (Reliable ServerPooling: Management Information Base
using SMIv2) toExperimental RFC)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear
all,
attached to this mail you find the updated version of the RSerPool
MIB module.
See my comments inline.
> >> -
According to RFC4181 this one
>
>>
rserpoolMIBConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 4 }
>
>> should change to
>
>>
rserpoolMIBConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 2
> >>
}
> >
> > 1 is used for the ENRP servers branch, 2 is used
for PE branch, 3 for PU
> > branch. The next available number is
4.
Fixed.
> The normal setup (according to rfc41`81)
would be something like:
>
>
rserpoolMIBObjects
OBJECT-IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 1 }
> rserpoolMIBConformance
OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 2 }
>
>
rserpoolENRPServers OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
{ rserpoolMIBObjects 1 }
>
rserpoolPoolElements OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
rserpoolMIBObjects 2 }
>
rserpoolPoolUsers
OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIBObjects 3 }
>
> Your new MIB
module has no indertation at all.
> Not a fatal flaw, but does not help
in readability.
Fixed.
> The new MIB module causes these
SMICng warnings:
> W: f(rserpool.mi2), (137,1) Sequence
"RSerPoolENRPEntry" and Row
> "rserpoolENRPEntry" should have related
names W: f(rserpool.mi2), (276,1)
> Sequence "RSerPoolENRPPoolEntry" and
Row "rserpoolENRPPoolEntry" should
> have related names W:
f(rserpool.mi2), (315,1) Sequence
> "RSerPoolENRPPoolElementEntry" and
Row "rserpoolENRPPoolElementEntry"
> should have related names W:
f(rserpool.mi2), (465,1) Sequence
> "RSerPoolENRPASAPAddrTableEntry" and
Row "rserpoolENRPASAPAddrTableEntry"
> should have related names W:
f(rserpool.mi2), (520,1) Sequence
> "RSerPoolENRPUserAddrTableEntry" and
Row "rserpoolENRPUserAddrTableEntry"
> should have related names W:
f(rserpool.mi2), (584,1) Sequence
> "RSerPoolENRPENRPAddrTableEntry" and
Row "rserpoolENRPENRPAddrTableEntry"
> should have related names W:
f(rserpool.mi2), (636,1) Sequence
> "RSerPoolENRPPeerEntry" and Row
"rserpoolENRPPeerEntry" should have related
> names W: f(rserpool.mi2),
(695,1) Sequence "RSerPoolENRPPeerAddrTableEntry"
> and Row
"rserpoolENRPPeerAddrTableEntry" should have related names W:
>
f(rserpool.mi2), (753,1) Sequence "RSerPoolPoolElementEntry" and Row
>
"rserpoolPEEntry" should have related names W: f(rserpool.mi2),
(941,1)
> Sequence "RSerPoolPEASAPAddrTableEntry" and Row
>
"rserpoolPEASAPAddrTableEntry" should have related names W:
>
f(rserpool.mi2), (994,1) Sequence "RSerPoolPEUserAddrTableEntry" and
Row
> "rserpoolPEUserAddrTableEntry" should have related names
W:
> f(rserpool.mi2), (1060,1) Sequence "RSerPoolPoolUserEntry" and
Row
> "rserpoolPUEntry" should have related names
>
> *** 0
errors and 12 warnings in parsing
>
> Probably cause by sticking
to a better naming convention. Bit it would be
> consistent throughout.
It seems likd what you have is not absolutely
> incorrect. Yet... it is
certainly not following the way things are normally
>
done.
>
> I think this is more what I would
expect:
>
> rserpoolENRPTable
OBJECT-TYPE
> SYNTAX SEQUENCE
OF RserpoolENRPEntry
>
> Then the ENTRY spec should read
like:
>
> rserpoolENRPEntry
OBJECT-TYPE
> SYNTAX
RserpoolENRPEntry
>
> And then:
>
>
RserpoolENRPEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
>
rserpoolENRPIndex
Unsigned32,
>
>
> Same further down in the MIB
module.
I replaced the prefix RSerPool by Rserpool. The warning should
be fixed now.
Bert, please could you run the SMICng program again on the
updated MIB module?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG
v1.4.9
(GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmKh3IACgkQ32BbsHYPLWVI/wCffN6IE/gABUiaqRHRCaXrcm74
ZqAAn3ETcUhzC8nPrhoMJ8QeKZ2Iv/CT
=1J4Z
-----END
PGP SIGNATURE-----
|