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

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 17 April 2014 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 86D601A01D6; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cESKme936dPR; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B72C1A01CE; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3HLtKmr011886; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:55:20 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3HLtJQ1011877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:55:19 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Black, David'" <david.black@emc.com>, <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, <zali@cisco.com>, <nobo@cisco.com>, "'General Area Review Team'" <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C2EC24D@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C2EC24D@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:55:18 +0100
Message-ID: <051b01cf5a87$b92a84d0$2b7f8e70$@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: AQHXstybkl3Rj5QCVQi0ErrtVmSSApsFo67A
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.0.0.1014-20640.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.041-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--7.041-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: QfHZjzml1E+nykMun0J1wpmug812qIbzC/ExpXrHizxXopZjyO6CZaem Jq66qqv9A72lF8jbwSm+h2+kRiP1Xo4a2rhHAtuZoMfp2vHck9WHxi2fvkKUM8izgKND8Lm5VZ8 xQvqztISd5Vi9MggDmL1DgIPIkgsZSWKSZniod93ThGbP9qB93B9fNWA7SFWqWltirZ/iPP4Duw Qv5f82WF/nw1MAso95JvN5sPGL1gQqCxvBy34zX2gws6g0ewz2moKXVHfiMM8gcyGevtftJ6PFj JEFr+olqYB+kyCYtxRcLc3sLtjOt+TCMddcL/gjOwBXM346/+zID5XcD4FtapcOFu+rNPoeDEFa KkIPel+133QqrH6lMVsi4ALUpd8T
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L_WNhrp0DXBkNdr6cyYKxYv98aY
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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 21:55:32 -0000

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