Re: [Disman] [MIB-DOCTORS] comments on draft-ietf-manet-report-mib-04

Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Tue, 21 April 2015 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
X-Original-To: disman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: disman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02ED61B2A6D; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 uYnnVIkq45ZX; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6781D1B2A6F; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=F58CKRIoQwqen38LtXlfrAVVAD4dExB2D7tt8ivS9aWb4+wuXjK5U84VGftbkdyY; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [209.86.224.33] (helo=elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1YkdhJ-0006NB-EB; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:19:05 -0400
Received: from 76.254.54.242 by webmail.earthlink.net with HTTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:19:05 -0400
Message-ID: <21091172.1429643945433.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:19:05 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, manet@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: EarthLink Zoo Mail 1.0
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888b65b6112f89115379af53944a38a708884189f6b645529d7350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 209.86.224.33
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/disman/Uq0AFfohCyfOh8FjPufIrGCNM0o>
Cc: mib-doctors@ietf.org, disman@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Disman] [MIB-DOCTORS] comments on draft-ietf-manet-report-mib-04
X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
List-Id: Distributed Management <disman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/disman/>
List-Post: <mailto:disman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:19:09 -0000

Hi -

>From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
>Sent: Apr 21, 2015 1:07 AM
>To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>om>, manet@ietf.org
>Cc: disman@ietf.org, mib-doctors@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] comments on draft-ietf-manet-report-mib-04
...
>This is inappropriate to ask for a MIB doctor review for a MIB module 
>that doesn't even compile.
...

I wrote:

>> This is *not* a full MIB doctor review; in my opinion some
...

Sorry if that misled anyone.
The reasons I CC-ed the mib-doctors@ietf.org list as well as
the disman@ietf.org list were:

  1) to let folks outside of manet@ietf.org know that *someone*
     had looked at this

  2) to make sure that no one had a problem with my suggestions
     regarding how the work could fit in with disman infrastructure
     and accepted MIB practice.

I think the timestamping issues in particular are of general
concern, so if there is consensus among practitioners regarding
the best way to deal with those issues beyond what we did with 
the Log MIB (the nlmLogTime and nlmLogDateAndTime hack)
it would be good to be able to make a specific recommendation to
the manet folk.  That would be a lot more helpful than my comments,
which amount to "this is busted."

Kinda tangentially...
   (3) Given the current emphasis on Netconf, and this module
       is primarily about configuring functionality, is anyone
       prepared to argue that this MIB module should instead be
       a Yang module and managed via Netconf protocol?

I think it would be a terrible fit, but that's not my problem.

Randy