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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,
> 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.
Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense to me.
This would be a useful addition to the writeup.

Regards, Benoit
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
> .
>