Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 03 October 2011 18:15 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8332221F8D31; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.535
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZxuJFi0STN+y; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB60421F8D26; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dn3-53.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p93IIdFM047859 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:18:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <01fd01cc81f7$a3734ed0$ea59ec70$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:18:38 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CC6670CE-259C-4F2D-87C7-0F15BBEF4DCA@nostrum.com>
References: <F652EB69-A187-43AA-82B9-34E263B87B77@nostrum.com> <01fd01cc81f7$a3734ed0$ea59ec70$@olddog.co.uk>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:39:48 -0700
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib.all@tools.ietf.org, 'The IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>, tata_kalyan@yahoo.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:15:37 -0000
Thanks, Adrian--that makes sense. Ben. On Oct 3, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for the review. > >> Minor issues: >> >> -- Section 7, first paragraph: "During the review of this document, It > emerged >> that there are different possible interpretations of [RFC5798]. The Authors of >> that document and the VRRP working group were unable to reach consensus on >> which interpretation is correct." >> >> That's rather unfortunate, since that RFC specifies the protocol this MIB is > _for_. I >> wish we could do better. From my limited knowledge here, I am agnostic as to >> whether the disagreement would make a substantive difference in the MIB. I put >> this in the "minor" section in hopes that it does not--but people more versed > in >> the protocol should think about this. > > Yes, this is really unfortunate. > > The WG (now closed) was unable to reach any firm conclusion. The authors of the > original spec were a bit vague and indecisive. > > We were left with no option other than for the authors of this document to: > - pick the interpretation they thought was most likely > - document the fact > - move on > > My feeling is that the lack of decisiveness in the WG for an established > protocol (not widely deployed, but reasonably well implemented and deployed) > showed that this was not an important function in the protocol. In practice, it > did not matter which choice was made in the MIB module because no-one seemed to > care which choice was made in the protocol. > > Thus, if VRRP was being advance on the protocol ladder, I would look for the > feature to be removed rather than for the issue to be resolved. > > Cheers, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- RE: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-vrrp-un… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unifie… Ben Campbell