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

"Sam K. Aldrin" <> Thu, 17 April 2014 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE9291A0188; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eR_prD7fdVy2; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22c]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521771A0176; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p10so819849pdj.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=gvbubcSt5auUHsa6TpP/bsQ7HxWk9Ll6lcrsfEFtZM4=; b=Wa90Z3SjJ5EUcQ0Zhw5maeny+KUACTiXLvadWHgr64xSZRd+xJMfswJPBdOk8qse/U las9lpQ1UcnZkWWahW9X/DQJONUwOO8kVFws5P1dyk88AiOhHRE+J7dKuya8m01gags3 pam2RY55WXalW+8GyKNmRYVJN/sM3dsOhhgYGmQ5V2A8aRffe8PRXmmjseKjvkIju3of M06loibhYLTEsmdbx11A+d8dWQB8+w9YRGw3srC6bgMiqrCUS9qdpoTfQcvOZvEDV0ZY kbFfkLE1LjwFYx6zZ3hvXL6x2NBZ3WzvzOy70NYpDMuzDzasVvC/CexWuqqYKnH4YdZJ S7qA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id zx1mr18534581pac.28.1397774419692; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id q10sm55812565pbl.29.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "Sam K. Aldrin" <>
In-Reply-To: <20140417221850.GD29430@pfrc>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:40:15 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <051b01cf5a87$b92a84d0$2b7f8e70$> <> <20140417221850.GD29430@pfrc>
To: Jeffrey Haas <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc:, "'Black, David'" <>,,,, 'General Area Review Team' <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:40:25 -0000

Hi Jeff,

Comments inline.

On Apr 17, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:

> Sam,
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:11:15PM -0700, Sam K. Aldrin wrote:
>> %sam - If this MIB allows write access, do you/WG anticipate, any extension to the MIB should also provide write-access as well? For example: augments this base MIB to support MPLS. It adds more confusion than solving the issue as base MIB supports write-access, but augmented/ MIB extension doesn't. 
>> As the BFD MIB authors were not supportive of write-access objects in the MIBs, why to have them in the first place? 
> As noted in earlier mailing list chatter, there is some support for write
> access in existing implementations.  Given the lack of significant detail
> when pressed for the name of such an implementation, I'm suspecting smaller
> vendor or internal implementation.  That's still sufficient to leave write
> available.
> Given that one of the original contexts of asking if we could remove write
> was whether IETF was being asked to provide such a thing for MPLS-TP with
> related impact on your extension MIB and the answer was "no", that shouldn't
> be the main criteria.  
No. The context of my question is not related to MPLS-TP as such, but write-access support in general. 
I should have added 'clarification' in my earlier email.
> My suspicion is that if we were to ship the base MIB with writeable objects,
> we may be forced to consider similar things for the extension MIB(s).
Both, bfd-mpls and mpls-TP MIB's are extensions to base MIBs, MPLS-TE and BFD-MIB respectively,  with write-access. Had to do write-access because of the reason you've mentioned above, which is base MIB. It would be painful to publish/support write-access MIB's when there is no clear interest. Hence my clarification question. 


> -- Jeff