RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Thu, 17 April 2014 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A974F1A01AD; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.273
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, 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 qlcU0EXzAanW; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1BF1A01A5; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd01.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd01.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.33]) by mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s3HM6WCl028810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:06:33 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com s3HM6WCl028810
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1397772394; bh=x5lPp3hwEyXiFe09SBaiImx5+CQ=; h=From:To:CC:Date:Subject:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=DUr7XRUrSxNEVBasvsv0aoBRzweKYySNTspmpf2P6t97h4d+7kpT2fEAkcCjzMQK8 PJ8AsSk6sI5BsAZjUKZCkLDdt8jnKwFEZOwpNGxu2SFMVcURN4U6BpxTP3mg+mJHYl LdAG7S8UalWA7VJlISkl+eOQR5EaP0h/CmTS/5bI=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com s3HM6WCl028810
Received: from mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.19]) by maildlpprd01.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:06:22 -0400
Received: from mxhub28.corp.emc.com (mxhub28.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.184]) by mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s3HM6Lqn009455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:06:21 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.64]) by mxhub28.corp.emc.com ([10.254.110.184]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:06:21 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "tnadeau@lucidvision.com" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, "zali@cisco.com" <zali@cisco.com>, "nobo@cisco.com" <nobo@cisco.com>, "'General Area Review Team'" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:06:20 -0400
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
Thread-Index: AQHXstybkl3Rj5QCVQi0ErrtVmSSApsFo67AgAAGUSA=
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C2EC421@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C2EC24D@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <051b01cf5a87$b92a84d0$2b7f8e70$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <051b01cf5a87$b92a84d0$2b7f8e70$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Jbx3lbreEHZY1vSdyf5bnR-dDOo
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:06:45 -0000

Hi Adrian,

As clarified in my response to Nobo, I raised the concern about writable
MIB modules primarily as a process check (I was expecting to find something
on this topic in the shepherd writeup, and didn't).  In particular, this
concern was not intended as a strong reason not to publish, and I have no
disagreements with any of the points in your message below.

With you on top of this and the OPS folks sure to notice, I have no doubt
that this will get suitably addressed, although it might be simpler to
ensure that the OPS Area is ok now rather than waiting for IESG Evaluation.

Thanks,
--David (in part, wearing his OPS Directorate member "hat").

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 5:55 PM
> To: Black, David; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; zali@cisco.com; nobo@cisco.com;
> 'General Area Review Team'
> Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> To pick out one of your points:
> 
> > This MIB contains many writable objects, so the authors should
> > take note of the IESG statement on writable MIB modules:
> >
> > 	http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html
> >
> > I did not see this mentioned in the shepherd writeup.  If the OPS Area
> > has not been consulted, I strongly suggest doing so during IETF Last
> > Call, e.g., starting with Benoit Claise (AD).
> 
> The OPS Directorate and the MIB Doctors will have been alerted to this
> document
> by the last call and we can expect their comments.
> 
> But this question was discussed between the AD and the authors, and the AD was
> unlikely to agree to sponsor the document if he felt it went against the IESG
> statement. Our discussion resulted in some reduction of writeable objects.
> 
> I think there are several points to consider:
> 1. This document had already been completed and publication requested (i.e.
> shepherd write-up written) at the time of the IESG statement. It would be
> unreasonable to make the statement retrospective.
> 2. There are already various implementations in equipment (not just management
> stations) of proprietary modules approximating to this document and these
> support write-access.
> 3. This is a low-level component protocol of the sort that is used on dumber
> devices and that is an area where write-access is more common.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
>