[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf-vrrp
Subject:    Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-07.txt MIB Dr. Review
From:       "Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata" <stata () checkpoint ! com>
Date:       2010-06-22 0:02:08
Message-ID: 9FFC3234F1B7F0439C9B8BF94A83F482152C20DFCA () USEXCHANGE ! ad ! checkpoint ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Thanks Joan,
	Most of the comments are clear to me now. I Will try to finalize the draft this week.

>
> [Kalyan>] Shell I go ahead and change the order of indexing to ifindex,
> VrId, AddrType?
>

Yes.  Those indexes uniquely identify the vr, so essentially, the tables are 
listed
by vr.   Please note, this is only a suggestion/proposal and the indexing is 
upto the
WG.  I didn't see any comments about this during Last Call, so as far as I'm 
aware
this is good with the WG, right?

[Kalyan>] I did not see any comments either. So I will change the indexing.

>
> * VrId (Textual Convention)
>
> There is already a VrId in RFC2787. While it looks as if the
> only difference is the DESCRIPTION clause, need to caution against
> doing redefining this.  I would suggest creating a VRID TC and
> making the DESCRIPTION simple, for example:  This value uniquely 
> identifies
> a
> Virtual Router on a VRRP router.
>
> While the remaining text is informative, it is not really necessary.
> Please also give a REFERENCE clause for this.
>
> [Kalyan>]
> [Kalyan>] I see the problem of defining VrId.
> [Kalyan>] I am thinking that you are suggesting that I create a new
> VRRP-TC-MIB which would define VrId separately and import in this MIB. Is
> this correct? Even if I define a new TC-MIB I would have to use a 
> different
> name like VrrpId or should I reuse VrId? If I am changing to VrrpId then 
> do
> I really need to define a new TC-MIB? I don't see any other MIB importing
> this either.
>

No, I wasn't suggesting a new MIB module, but definitely a new TC is needed.
This should have a name that indicates v3 and TC like:   Vrrpv3VrIdTC.

After reading this over again, would like to keep your original description, 
but switch
the wording from:

"A number which, along with the IP version and interface index (IfIndex), 
serves..."

to:

"A number which, along with the interface index (IfIndex) and the IP 
version, serves...."

(If you agree with the proposed indexes (above) for  the 
vrrpv3OperationsTable, etc.,
then the proposed wording above for the TC agrees.  In other words, the 
ordering for the
indexes agrees with how this TC is worded.

[Kalyan>] I misunderstood your originally comment. I will change as you proposed.

[Kalyan>] Thanks
Kalyan


_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]