Re: [BEHAVE] WGLC on draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Wed, 10 July 2013 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F10221E8091 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y4UZeY6aPcCM for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4EE721E808E for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40B420BDA; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:19:16 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lNGzmF3HoFP6; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:19:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0BE2090B; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:19:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 292632730DEE; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:19:12 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:19:12 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Message-ID: <20130710141912.GA64394@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, ietfdbh <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib@tools.ietf.org, behave@ietf.org, 'Dave Thaler' <dthaler@microsoft.com>
References: <7bc37af6cf764c2e965778b6b265a2d4@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <ba99d2de63904656992c45255161910a@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <51A72041.6060208@viagenie.ca> <2d6b12df967d4faf8fcfd6d6891b2ca2@BN1PR03MB267.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <51A8565B.5070700@viagenie.ca> <004a01ce5e05$6bf10c90$43d325b0$@comcast.net> <51DD6700.10901@viagenie.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <51DD6700.10901@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib@tools.ietf.org, ietfdbh <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, 'Dave Thaler' <dthaler@microsoft.com>, behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] WGLC on draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:19:40 -0000

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:52:00PM +0200, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Le 2013-05-31 15:47, ietfdbh a écrit :
> > 1) A while back, I suggested that, if you are deprecating all of the NAT-MIB
> > in rfc4008, that it would be better to do this as a separate document from
> > the NEW-NAT-MIB (or whatever the new module gets called). Simon asked me to
> > get consensus from the MIB Doctors.
> > 
> > I checked with the MIB Doctor list, and only got one reply - from Juergen,
> > who apparently recommended a single document. His response:
> > " I have probably been pushing them into this because at the beginning it
> > was not really clear why the existing NAT-MIB is fatally flawed such that it
> > needs a complete replacement. If the behave WG has meanwhile reached
> > consensus that indeed the existing NAT-MIB is fatally flawed and needs a
> > complete replacement, then indeed what you suggest makes sense. I assume the
> > WG has checked with those who have implementations of the existing NAT-MIB
> > (if any) that they agree on a need for a complete new MIB."
> 
> I'm having trouble parsing this.
> 
> Our position, and we feel we have the consensus of the WG with us, is
> that the existing NAT-MIB is fatally flawed and we need a complete
> replacement. The reasons are explained in section 3.1.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib-06#section-3.1
> 
> That's why we initially started with a brand new MIB, called the
> NEW-NAT-MIB. We changed into the current structure based on feedback
> from the working group in general and Juergen in particular.

As far as I recall, it was initially not clear whether there is
consensus that the NAT-MIB is fatally flawed. (And the text that is
now in section 3.1 did not exist at that time in the current level of
detail as far as I recall.)

I suggest a consensus call is made by the chairs on this fundamental
question. If there is consensus that the NAT-MIB is fatally flawed
(and note that opinions of implementors in particular matter here),
then declaring the MIB module in RFC 4008 historic (e.g. marking RFC
4008 historic) and creating a new MIB module may indeed be the right
thing to do.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>