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

"Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com> Fri, 18 April 2014 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <nobo@cisco.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 313A91A01E6; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.773
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.773 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_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, 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 ZeXP7-RUyS0X; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64AF41A0134; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2616; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1397783090; x=1398992690; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=9hS/2W9x/fYLzWcVQQBs8PLMW9/qgJipIGCwZA11CS4=; b=Gbbr6rbJEMvUI99IFDb0d2WuHYwwTQbxY+49cHnHU5ALla0fTaM4xOOd IswlHGRFWT8aX/am45/2A/xJkK39KedYO0AJulmagwTWSb9YLwlllCz2Q ILtINXXtQiczeUHqMXU26uJIccTUOsiEWNLILzTO6KHX8v/xjXLpPFQrg E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAJd5UFOtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgmUhO1fDaIEjFnSCJQEBAQMBOjQLEAIBCBgKFBAyJQEBBAENDQELh2AIAQzMFBeOABACAR4xAgWDJIEUBJolkRaDMYIr
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,882,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="318620035"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2014 01:04:49 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3I14nIr011776 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Apr 2014 01:04:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 20:04:48 -0500
From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>
To: "Sam K. Aldrin" <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
Thread-Index: Ac9Zy+Zk0qHspTLsTUq2+7kL82/PpAA5br4AAACOm4AAAEPMAAAAv3uAAAaLVxA=
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 01:04:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3941E10BDAE@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C2EC24D@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <051b01cf5a87$b92a84d0$2b7f8e70$@olddog.co.uk> <33536B2D-46AF-4828-9C2E-0F2349A80E44@gmail.com> <20140417221850.GD29430@pfrc> <8BA1120C-3C89-4F73-A937-D7C118704553@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8BA1120C-3C89-4F73-A937-D7C118704553@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.20]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/k0luW5FcPC46YSyIZ0zb-prwfr4
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "'Black, David'" <david.black@emc.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali@cisco.com>, 'General Area Review Team' <gen-art@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 01:04:58 -0000

Hi 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:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib/ 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.

This mentions three vendors wanting to implement MIB as writable.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg01382.html

And one more vendor voicing for writable.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg01397.html

I agree that defining & wording writable MIB is much more painful than all read-only MIB. But above thread indicates the desire by multiple vendors to implement writable BFD MIB. Therefore it does seem that there are interests, and going forward with write-access will benefit the community. And with *ReadOnlyCompliance defined, BFD MIB can also accommodate those implementing them as just read-only.

-Nobo

> 
> -sam
> 
> >
> > -- Jeff