MIB for the UDP-Lite protocol
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udplite-mib-03

[Ballot comment]
1. New text:
"for UDP-Lite should resemble the that of UDP [RFC4113], with"
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^ Need to fix grammar.

2. In the original MIB Doctor review:

> 13) Typo in DESCRIPTION of udpliteEndpointTable:
>    "In all cases where the remote is a wildcard, the"
>
>    Insert "address" after "remote".

NOW: "In all cases where the remote is a wildcard address,"

"remote" is not a noun, so I still consider this grammatically wrong...
"address" was inserted in the wrong place in the sentence.  Should be "In all cases where the remote address is a wildcard,"

3. It is preferable to avoid mentioning RFC numbers in the Abstract section, as these may change while this specification says.

4. Also in the Abstract s/MIB entities/MIB objects/

5. in Section 1.1 - s/Another contrast to UDP/Another difference from the UDP MIB module/

6. DESCRIPTION clauses of udpliteEndPointLocalAddress and udpliteEndPointLocalAddress include the phrase 'else the information cannot be accessed using SNMPv1, SNMPv2c, or SNMPv3.' This is problematic because they mention older SNMP versions which are not standard, and because the limitation that is being alluded is not only of SNMP but also of the SMI. I suggest to drep this text or to replace it by 'this is because of SNMP and SMI limitations'.

7. DESCRIPTION clause of udpliteEndpointMinCoverage s/If set to 0,/A value of 0 indicates that/

8. Section 4, paragraph 3 - s/ay/may/

[Ballot discuss]
Part of the content of this DISCUSS reflects the MIB Doctor review performed by Dave Thaler.

1) Section 1.2 and the DESCRIPTION of udpliteEndpointProcess.

How does the agent pick any one process from those that have the endpoint?  Some guidance is needed here for how the agent should implement this object, since it doesn't match the normal sockets model.

Do they have to pick the one with the lowest number? The first one started? Something else? Does it have to pick the same one each time the object is read?

For example, maybe add after the first sentence in the description something like: "When multiple such pieces of software exist, the agent should pick one using any implementation-specific method such that subsequent reads will return the same value as long as that piece of software is still running."

Also it is not clear what the agent should do if both HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrSWRunIndex or SYSAPPL-MIB::sysApplElmtRunIndex can be implemented and return meaningful values.

2. All counters DESCRIPTION clauses include the following:

> Discontinuities in the value of this counter can occur at
re-initialization of the management system, and at other times as indicated by discontinuities in the value of sysUpTime.

This sentence is taken from the UDP MIB (RFC 4113) from which this work is largely inspired. Yet I am inclined to push back and ask for the inclusion of a discontinuity object as required by RFC 4181 and RFC 2578. I believe that overloading sysUpTime with semantics of 'at other times'
cases of discontinuity from counters of different MIB modules is a dangerous practice. While in the case of the UDP MIB assuming sysUpTime should reflect a discontinuity of a UDP counter because it's part of the original IP stack (and MIB I / MIB II implementation) for other protocols I believe separate discontinuity indicators is better.

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "NETWORK MANAGEMENT PARAMETERS" registry
located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers
sub-registry "Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1)"

Decimal Name Description References
------- ---- ----------- ----------
[tbd] udpliteMIB UDP-Lite Management [RFC-tsvwg-udplite-mib-01]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this
document.

This is the writeup for draft-ietf-tsvwg-udplite-mib-00 inteded for
publication as proposed standard.

 
  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
         
Magnus Westerlund has reviewed this document and finds it suitable for
publication.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?
         
It has been adequate reviewed by WG members.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?
         
It will need MIB doctor review.         

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.
         
No issues.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?
         
Strong consensus from a smaller set of individuals. The rest doesn't care.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)
         
No issues.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.
         
It will need MIB doctor review during IETF last call.
         

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
         
The references are split. No issue with normative references.         

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?
         
Does contain an IANA requst to register in a currently present registry.


  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?
         
Checked, two minor issue found to be addressed after AD review.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.


          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
            For example, was there controversy about particular points
            or were there decisions where the consensus was
            particularly rough?

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
            what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
            Review, on what date was the request posted?

          Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
            experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
            in this document are .'
           
           
Technical Summary
 
  This document specifies a Management Information Base (MIB) for the
  Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite, RFC 3828).  It defines
  a set of new MIB entities to characterise the behaviour and
  performance of transport layer endpoints deploying UDP-Lite.  UDP-
  Lite resembles UDP (RFC 768), but differs from the semantics of UDP
  by the addition of a single (socket) option.  This adds the
  capability for variable-length data checksum coverage, which can
  benefit a class of applications that prefer delivery of (partially)
  corrupted datagram payload data in preference to discarding the
  datagram.
 
Working Group Summary

  There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.
 
Document Quality
 
  The document has so far been reviewed by key WG members. MIB doctor
  review to happen during IETF last call.
 
Personell

  WG Shepherd and responsible AD was Magnus Westerlund