Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10

Thanks, Adrian--that makes sense.

Ben.

On Oct 3, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Hi Ben,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
>> Minor issues:
>> 
>> -- Section 7,  first paragraph: "During the review of this document, It
> emerged
>> that there are different possible interpretations of [RFC5798]. The Authors of
>> that document and the VRRP working group were unable to reach consensus on
>> which interpretation is correct."
>> 
>> That's rather unfortunate, since that RFC specifies the protocol this MIB is
> _for_. I
>> wish we could do better. From my limited knowledge here, I am agnostic as to
>> whether the disagreement would make a substantive difference in the MIB. I put
>> this in the "minor" section in hopes that it does not--but people more versed
> in
>> the protocol should think about this.
> 
> Yes, this is really unfortunate.
> 
> The WG (now closed) was unable to reach any firm conclusion. The authors of the
> original spec were a bit vague and indecisive. 
> 
> We were left with no option other than for the authors of this document to:
> - pick the interpretation they thought was most likely
> - document the fact
> - move on
> 
> My feeling is that the lack of decisiveness in the WG for an established
> protocol (not widely deployed, but reasonably well implemented and deployed)
> showed that this was not an important function in the protocol. In practice, it
> did not matter which choice was made in the MIB module because no-one seemed to
> care which choice was made in the protocol.
> 
> Thus, if VRRP was being advance on the protocol ladder, I would look for the
> feature to be removed rather than for the issue to be resolved.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art