Folks,
Just as an update, 'draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-09' was submitted
before the I-D submission deadline and this email summarizes the changes
from the previous revision.
As a note, there were no technical changes made, but an attempt was made
to address the comments received from experts received on this list
(thanks).
regards
Sumanth (on behalf of the co-authors)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#0
My personal comment is that we need to clean up the "nits" caught on
<
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipcdn/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-08.nits.txt> in draft 09, subsequent to
completion of the WGLC. These appear to be caused mostly by minor
document formatting issues, especially the "missing sections" that are
in fact present in the latest draft.
[Sumanth] Fixed (please check)?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Are you using nroff? The spacing of section titles is weird. Also,
the online idnits tool still complains that page 4 is longer than it
should be. It also complains that there is no Security Considerations or
IANA Considerations sections, and I suspect this relates to the
formatting of section titles.
[Sumanth] Fixed (please check)?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2) RFC3164 is informational, and should be listed as an Informative not
Normative Reference, if I remember the rules correctly.
[Sumanth] Fixed (please check)?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3) PKT-SP-EVEMIB1.5 went from a January 2006 date to an August 2005
date. Is that correct?
[Sumanth] Yes, it was incorrect in the earlier revision (should have
been January 2005)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4) pktcDevEvLogEnterprise is defined with
SYNTAX Unsigned32(1.. 2147483648)
Why?
I looked at the IANA Enterprise number list and saw no
restriction to this range.
Unsigned32 allows values (0 .. 2^32-1) i.e. (0 .. 4294967295)
pktcDevEventDescrEnterprise does not have the same range as
pktcDevEvLogEnterprise.
[S] Corrected the ranges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5) pktcDevEvLogIndex is not allowed to exceed 2^31. Why? (not that it is
likely to reach a number higher than this, but the Unsigned32 can
support up to 2^32-1. And is there a reason for not supporting the 0
low-end of the range?
[Sumanth]
The reason for not supporting zero is based on the recommendation from
RFC4181:
- For integer-valued objects that appear in an INDEX clause or for
integer-valued TCs that are to be used in an index column:
- Unsigned32 with a range that excludes zero is RECOMMENDED for
most index objects. It is acceptable to include zero in the
range when it is semantically significant or when it is used as
the index value for a unique row with special properties. Such
usage SHOULD be clearly documented in the DESCRIPTION clause.
The reason for the upper bound of 2^32 - 1 was based on the conclusion
reached by the co-authors; but it is now modified to allow for the full
range
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6) RFC3164 is Informational, rather than standards-track. It might be
better to use references based on the draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-17.txt,
also in WGLC and about to be submitted for standards track.
[Sumanth] Fixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Is there a reason you changed the textual convention to be mib module
specific? Since it uses values defined in RFC3164, would it be good to
make this a generic textual convention?
An alternative would be to use the SyslogSeverity Textual Convention
defined in the draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib-09.txt, which is in WGLC and
about to be submitted for standards track.
RFC3164 is Informational, rather than standards-track. Its references
are based on the about-to-be standards track syslog-protocol-17
document.
[Sumanth] Good comment and yes, it is done
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
IPCDN@...
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
