Adrian, thank you so much for the detailed review.
Please, see my response (starting with [JR]) to your comments below.
Best regards,
Jeong-dong
> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
> (mpls) to consider the following document:
> - 'MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection MIB'
>
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2017-01-26. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
I have reviewed the -11 version of this document. It is well written and
clear to read. I particularly welcome the explanations of the various
objects.
Here are a very few minor points and some nits.
I think the document is ready to proceed to publication.
Thanks,
Adrian
===
Section 1 concludes with
Although the example
described in Section 7 specify means to configure OAM identifiers for
MPLS-TP tunnels, this should be seen as indicating how the MIB values
would be returned in the specified circumstances having been
configured by alternative means.
Two thoughts:
1. This text needs to be repeated in Section 7
2. This would read better as:
Although the example
described in Section 7 shows a way to configure OAM identifiers for
MPLS-TP tunnels, this also indicates how the MIB values would be
returned if they had been configured by alternative means.
[JR] OK, those two points will be reflected to the revision.
---
Section 4.
The first sentence is a little hard to read...
RFC 6378 [RFC6378] defines the protocol to provide a linear
protection switching mechanism for MPLS-TP with protection domain as
a point-to-point LSP.
Looking at section 1.1. of RFC 6378, I think you could write...
RFC 6378 [RFC6378] defines the protocol to provide a linear
protection switching mechanism for MPLS-TP for a point-to-point LSP
within the protection domain bounded by the end points of the LSP.
[JR] OK.
---
Is Section 5.1 too terse? Maybe a two line explanation of each new TC?
[JR] Would the following text be ok?
The following new textual conventions are defined in this document:
o MplsLpsReq: This Textual Convention describes an object that
stores the PSC Request field of the PSC control packet.
o MplsLpsFpathPath: This Textual Convention describes an object
that stores the Fault Path (FPath) field and Data Path (Path)
field of the PSC control packet.
o MplsLpsCommand: This Textual Convention describes an object that
allows a user to perform any action over a protection domain.
o MplsLpsState: This Textual Convention describes an object that
stores the current state of the PSC state machine.
---
Please have a quick check to see whether sometimes when you say "this
MIB" you mean "this MIB module" (etc., for other uses of "MIB").
For example the Description clause of mplsLpsNotificationEnable
"Provides the ability to enable and disable notifications
defined in this MIB.
[JR] I checked the whole document, and that was the only place to add the word, “module”.
---
It is a little odd that MplsLpsReq has a syntax of
OCTET STRING (SIZE (2)), a display hint of "1d", and you list the
potential values in binary.
I should think that the values should be listed in decimal as they
are shown in RFC6378 and RFC7271.
Then it is just a question of whether this should be a text string or
an integer, which probably doesn't matter, but if your keep it as a
octet string, you do need to say how the numbers are encoded (presumably
ASCII?).
[JR] I will change it to an integer.
For MplsLpsFpathPath why do you say...
Bits are numbered from left to right.
...I don't see any reference to bits.
[JR] The notion of left/right was intended to indicate that FPath (the first octet, which is in left) is followed by Path (the second octet, which is in right). But, you are right and there is no reference to bits.
Would it be ok to remove the sentence, “Bits are numbered from left to right.” ?
---
mplsLpsConfigSdBadSeconds and mplsLpsConfigSdGoodSeconds could use a
Units clause (although it should be pretty obvious from the name and
description!)
[JR] UNITS “seconds” will be added.
---
Is there a reason why you used
SYNTAX INTEGER {true (1), false (2)}
instead of TruthValue in
mplsLpsStatusRevertiveMismatch
mplsLpsStatusProtecTypeMismatch
mplsLpsStatusCapabilitiesMismatch
mplsLpsStatusPathConfigMismatch OBJECT-TYPE
[JR] No reason. TruthValue will be used in the revision.
---
mplsLpsStatusPathConfigMismatch OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER {true (1), falsmplsOamIdMeMpIndexNexte (2)}
Looks like a typo although it will compile :-)
[JR] Once TruthValue is in place, this mistake will go away.
===
Nits
---
Section 1
s/read- write/read-write/
s/document is consistent/document are consistent/
---
Section 4
s/alternate/alternative/
---
Section 5.3
s/failures of linear protection/failures of the linear protection/
---
mplsLpsMeStatusTable
s/liear/linear/
[JR] All the nits will be fixed. Thank you.