Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04

Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net> Thu, 29 September 2022 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <dfedyk@labn.net>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9DCFC14F72F; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 07:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RJ3CWPRomF3N; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 07:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM02-BN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1nam07lp2049.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.51.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E227EC14F72C; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 07:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:133::11) by SJ0PR14MB4726.namprd14.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:373::19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5676.22; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:25:57 +0000
Received: from PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c285:9424:a2db:84b5]) by PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c285:9424:a2db:84b5%5]) with mapi id 15.20.5654.026; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:25:57 +0000
From: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs.all@ietf.org>, "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04
Thread-Index: AQHYzgx9kikz9cZI6E+NtV24WzWORK32cUIg
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:25:57 +0000
Message-ID: <PH7PR14MB5368559C4ACE46DBAB839F82BB579@PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <166380060147.12969.9531587454280474028@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <166380060147.12969.9531587454280474028@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=labn.net;
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: PH7PR14MB5368:EE_|SJ0PR14MB4726:EE_
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d36c7952-1065-42c7-0158-08daa2268661
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: labn.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d36c7952-1065-42c7-0158-08daa2268661
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Sep 2022 14:25:57.2839 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: eb60ac54-2184-4344-9b60-40c8b2b72561
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: TQH+K9Y6qOs92vViwP3tZcDySSddoSeVcQq6D2I5B/E5JhVnkFtH9wYq1ISA6cTtStWTZXKPofNg+n5JYYQp8A==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ0PR14MB4726
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/x5lcGRmHkwnLGzH1D0cE9QsSszc>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:26:04 -0000

Hi Joel 

The reason this was requested by the community is that there is SNMP management equipment deployed that they would like to be able use for monitoring IP-TFS.

I suggest I add this text to clearify.   

OLD:
The objects defined here are the same as [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs] with the exception that only operational data is supported. This module uses the YANG model as a reference point for managed objects. Note an IETF MIB model for IPsec was never standardized however the structures here could be adapted to existing MIB implementations.

NEW:
The objects defined here are the same as [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs] with the exception that only operational data is supported. By making operational data accessible via SNMP existing network management systems can monitor IP-TFS.  This module uses the YANG model as a reference point for managed objects. Note an IETF MIB model for IPsec was never standardized however the structures here could be adapted to existing MIB implementations.

Doses that suffice? 

Thanks
Don 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 6:50 PM
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs.all@ietf.org; ipsec@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Almost Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2022-09-21
IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-04
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Assuming a reasonable answer to one question, this document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Major issues:
    The one question I have is "why?"  I could not find anywhere in the
    document any explanation of why we are defining an SNMP MIB for monitoring
    ipsecme, nor the equivalent why an operator would choose to use this MIB
    instead of the YANG based model that it is based upon.

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments: N/A