WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> Document: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-12
> Definition of Managed Objects for the
> Neighborhood Discovery Protocol
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date: 6-April-2012
> IETF LC End Date: 16-April-2012
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed
That's good :-)
> Major issues:
> Section 126.96.36.199 on Ignoring Initial Activity is trying to do a very
> reasonable thing, namely suppress notifications for activity which is
> expected. The text references RFC 4750 as precedent. RFC 4750 is
> clear that the suppress window is tied to specific events (interface
> up and election as a DR.) Section 188.8.131.52 does not specify which
> condition(s) start(s) the suppress window. If, as seems likely, it is
> Interface Up which starts the window, please state that explicitly in
> the text.
How about adding the following sentence at the end of
the paragraph of 184.108.40.206:
"The suppression window for notifications is started when the 'nhdpIfStatus'
transitions from its default value of 'false' to 'true'."
> In section 5.4, in addition to describing objects which are defined
> in the MIB, the text describes, under the heading "The following
> objects return statistics related to HELLO messages:", a number of
> what it refers to as "Derived Objects". These do not appear to be
> actual elements of the MIB. They appear rather to be descriptions of
> calculations which the manager can perform using the information from
> the MIB. It is not at all clear why they are here. If I am
> understanding their role properly, and if they belong in this
> document, they belong in some other section, as they are NOT objects
> which return statistics related to HELLO messages. They appear not to
> be returned by the managed device at all.
<nhdp-mib-authors> Yes, you are right. We we pull these from the draft and
save the text and possibly use elsewhere in the future.
> Minor issues:
> I can not find the object that corresponds to the setting for
> Ignoring the Initial Activity. I presume this is my error. The
> document would be helped if the object were named in section 220.127.116.11.
We can change 'HELLO_INTERVAL' in Section 18.104.22.168 to 'nhdpHelloInterval'.
> I believe section 22.214.171.124 on Throttling Traps is intended to refer
> to the StateChange Threshold and StateChangeWindow objects. It would
> be very helpful if these were actually named in section 126.96.36.199.
How about adding the following sentence to 188.8.131.52:
The following objects are used to define the thresholds and time
windows for specific Notifications defined in the NHDP-MIB module:
> Most MIBs I review have a description of the tables they contain,
> how the tables relate to each other, and how they are indexed, in the
> front matter that is roughly equivalent to section 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4.
> As I am not a MIB Doctor, I do not know if that is formally required,
> but I find it very helpful, and am surprised not to see it here.
We agree that this is probably a good practice to follow and will work up text to handle this.
> In looking at the fields in the NhdpInterfaceEntry, some of the
> field definitions include some of the constraints from RFC 6130
> section 5 in their DESCRIPTION clauses. Some do not. (For exampple,
> REFRESH_INTERVAL >= HELLO_INTERVAL is captured in
> nhdbpRefreshInterval, but not in nhdpHelloInterval. The requirement
> that nhdpHelloInterval be greater than 0 is not captured anywhere.
> Neither is H_HOLD_TIME >= REFRESH_INTERVAL captured.) Some elements
> have a statement that the object is persistent, while others do not,
> but these do not seem to correspond to a difference in RFC 6130. It
> is possible that there is a good reason for this apparent variation.
> Is there?
That's true. We will go through all constraints from NHDP and
add them to the MIB.
> Particularly for top-level objects such as nhdpNHoldTime and
> NhdpIHoldTime I would really like to see a better description than
> just this is <named> object from section 5 of RFC 6130. Someone who
> is using the MIB, who is looking at the description clause for
> assistance, really needs something more than the name of the field in
> the MIB. (I think better descriptions would be a good idea through
> much of the MIB.)
We will can look at the descriptions and copy some more text from
NHDP. However, we would like to avoid copying all NHDP into the MIB.
> Nits/editorial comments:
> The tracker claims this is "In WG Last Call (manet), but also seems
> to indicate that it is in IETF Last Call. Are the two happening at
> the same time?
We actually don't know, and will ask the chairs about that.