IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-perrault-behave-deprecate-nat-mib-v1-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 24 June 2015 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86AB1A8ADA; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bQYl6IDKmmBZ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vn0-x232.google.com (mail-vn0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 207661A8794; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vnbg7 with SMTP id g7so6826230vnb.11; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hFqUNFQmKOc45J/Bd87VKjD49b+ESoYWQHBZhx5164Y=; b=LzB2AYsqmULGGD8P35VGds+DvlJA8Must7Z78NCwMImzvhiJrQOMhmLVIqXm7QqgF6 O/v+TnYLJwB0M41yw52HPjTnW3gYmH8mTiNg9ymsQUfiPLEnDT8Gvf6CQzA9vdNBEYlW GwaBQayAhM1+kQDxysZ819nAAeb5mKmdwcyBDTInhAQfoccHjB2WtOsBIVITzEMn5Q/1 lP1VLLbbEfeO+IjoVAeHBxKyW27ku58hd7Y20501ah3PU1b6Iv+L+3FK9+9FNxQehzSp 9NsbTESDq+dzS9+FUeAxwsenDEn5Kq/6+NxvgYcPxghQof3lTZTS5Ls4ZnPFn3tFcN2x dLvA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.88.111 with SMTP id bf15mr38031748vdb.20.1435159420279; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.195.6 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <558ACA5F.7000105@gmail.com>
References: <20150608134117.30091.62236.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <001501d0a20e$b31c90e0$1955b2a0$@comcast.net> <5575EA98.1080009@cisco.com> <557EEDCF.9000506@gmail.com> <5587B06C.1080507@cisco.com> <CAKKJt-eFUEVLLuWnbNa6Yf_qYTMhej5wQQTMcO49iCNr5Wdv7g@mail.gmail.com> <5589C2E3.7050002@gmail.com> <558A6F72.3060203@cisco.com> <CAKKJt-cO4ryBWTiN3TdRciWP9B3btWAHV8f-gttiPbpQrQ789w@mail.gmail.com> <558A9E2F.6050506@cisco.com> <558ACA5F.7000105@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:23:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dRKg-sAoiDLb33neAUqOjKxEhFwVVPytDprdZgS_772g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf307cfbe67122a105194517b9"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/ougZyqNeL2QkTPq-rBT7U2Mg8Z8>
Cc: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, Tina Tsou <tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com>, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, sperreault@jive.ca, ietfdbh <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-perrault-behave-deprecate-nat-mib-v1-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 24 Jun 2015 15:23:43 -0000

Hi, Tom,

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
wrote:

> OK, our messages crossed. I will take no further actions other than making
> sure the copyright date is fixed.


And double-crossed :-)

Could you submit a version of the draft with the copyright date fix, and I
can send an approval note for that?

Spencer


> Tom
>
> On 24/06/2015 8:10 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 24, 2015 04:51, "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com
>>> <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Tom,
>>> >
>>> >> Yes, I believe so. If the RFC Ed. doesn't pick up the copyright
>>> thing, it can be fixed in AUTH48.
>>> >>
>>> >> Reviewing the IESG evaluation, I note the suggestion to leave out
>>> the MIB module definition itself and just have text saying (as Joel
>>> suggested) that all objects are deprecated. Would people agree to
>>> that? That would eliminate my fiddling with syntax to eliminate
>>> SMILINT warnings.
>>>
>>>  Forgot to reply to this one.
>> I believe the draft makes sense as done right now.
>> People might want to extract all MIB modules from RFC and load them all.
>> This way, they would directly see in their MIB browser that the MIB
>> objects are deprecated.
>>
>> Regards, Benoit
>>
>>>
>>> So, two questions -
>>>
>>> - is the issue that changing the definition while deprecating the
>>> objects is strange?
>>>
>>> - if the document just said "all objects are deprecated", would the
>>> resulting MIB modules still produce SMILINT warnings?
>>>
>>> Obviously, I'm wondering if the right answer is to leave the syntax
>>> unchanged, and point out that the syntax generates SMILINT warnings
>>> whether the objects are deprecated or not, but since all this document
>>> is doing is deprecating objects, the syntax is left unchanged, and
>>> anyone who implements the V1 MIB now will have bigger problems than
>>> the SMILINT warnings, but I don't know that's the right answer.
>>>
>>>  ...
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email