RE: mib-doctor review of draft-ietf-ipsp-spd-mib

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Just another nit:
       REVISION     "200401070000Z"            -- 7 January 2004
       DESCRIPTION  "Initial version, published as RFC ZZZZ."
       -- RFC-editor assigns ZZZZ

   -- ZZZZ: To be assigned by IANA
       ::= { mib-2 xxx }


ZZZZ (the RFC-number) gets assigned and filled in by RFC-Editor.

The xxx (branch under mib-2) gets assigned by IANA.

Further, I get from SMICng:

   W: f(spd.mi2), (71,21) The first revision should match the last
      update for MODULE-IDENTITY spdMIB
   W: f(spd.mi2), (197,4) Row "spdEndpointToGroupEntry" has indexing
      that may create variables with more than 128 sub-ids

The DESCIPRION clause of the tableEntry should have a warning for
implementations to watch out for more than 128 subids.
See the draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-03.txt
For example:
         Implementors need to be aware that if the size of
         spdEndGroupAddress exceeds xxx octets then OIDs of column
         instances in this table will have more than 128 sub-
         identifiers and cannot be accessed using SNMPv1, SNMPv2c, or
         SNMPv3.

You need to check how much xxx is, smilint is your friend

    E: f(spd.mi2), (915,4) Item "spdTrueFilter" must not have
       items registered below it

caused by: 
   spdTrueFilter OBJECT-TYPE
           SYNTAX      Integer32
    ... snip ..

   spdTrueFilterInstance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { spdTrueFilter 0 }

Not sure what you are trying to do here

   W: f(spd.mi2), (2174,20) Item "spdPacketPart" should have SIZE specified
   W: f(spd.mi2), (112,4) Textual convention "SpdIPPacketLogging" 
      defined but not used

   *** 1 error and 4 warnings in parsing

Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Baer [mailto:baerm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 09:43
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Harrie Hazewinkel; ipsec-policy@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: mib-doctor review of draft-ietf-ipsp-spd-mib
> 
> 
> >>>>> "Bert" == Bert Wijnen <Wijnen> writes:
> 
>     Bert> One thing that immediately caught my eye when quickly
>     Bert> browsing this response was:
> 
> The current draft is attached.  The comments below should be fixed
> in it, but I haven't gone through all of Harries previous comments.
> 
>