Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 23 August 2013 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB5611E82F7 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 519OVv+rcEGq for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87FA411E81C0 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7NEGQ99013791; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:16:28 +0100
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.176]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7NEGQa1013786 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:16:26 +0100
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7NEGPxc003661; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:16:25 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7NEGNEg003655 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:16:24 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Lou Berger'" <lberger@labn.net>, "'t.petch'" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
References: <00a501ce9e5d$017b7ba0$047272e0$@olddog.co.uk> <52153E45.1030505@labn.net> <025701ce9f5c$185bcc80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <521765CC.4030306@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <521765CC.4030306@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:16:19 +0100
Message-ID: <045f01cea00b$573700f0$05a502d0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQE1T0XVKoT/47lpBeUkJvBRZWb0sgH2nusjAc6mx8kBbZryTJqr4P7w
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update.all@tools.ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:16:46 -0000

Really good catch, Tom.

What Lou suggests looks the best way to handle it.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> Sent: 23 August 2013 14:38
> To: t.petch; adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update.all@tools.ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update
> 
> Tom,
> 	See below.
> 
> ...
> 
> >> On 8/21/2013 6:55 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> ...
> 
> >>>
> >>> Please add a note to the IANA considerations section to request an
> >>> update to
> >>>
> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib.xhtml
> >>>
> >>> Possibly you should refer to it as IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB rather than
> > through
> >>> the URL.
> >> The proposed text to be added to the end of the section is:
> >>
> >>    A parallel change to IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB is also required. In
> >>    particular, under IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC a reference to this
> >>    document should be added as item 3. Also the following changes
> > should
> >>    be made to the related values:
> >>
> >>           deprecated(2),      -- Deprecated
> >>           deprecated(3),      -- Deprecated
> >>           deprecated(4),      -- Deprecated
> >
> > Mmmmm RFC4181 says
> >
> > "Therefore, labels of named numbers and named
> >   bits MUST NOT be changed when revising IETF MIB modules (except to
> >   correct typographical errors), and they SHOULD NOT be changed when
> >   revising enterprise MIB modules.
> > "
> >
> > so I do not think that you can do that.  Change of STATUS (which applies
> > to the whole TC) yes, label no. (Don't you love SNMP?)
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> 
> Looks like you're right.
> 
> Perhaps the following is the "right" middle ground:
> Existing:
>                   psc2(2),      -- Packet-Switch-Capable 2
>                   psc3(3),      -- Packet-Switch-Capable 3
>                   psc4(4),      -- Packet-Switch-Capable 4
> Revised:
>                   psc2(2),      -- Deprecated [This.document]
>                   psc3(3),      -- Deprecated [This.document]
>                   psc4(4),      -- Deprecated [This.document]
> 
> Adrian,
> 
> Do you agree with the above?  This is a bit different than your request.
> 
> Much thanks,
> Lou