Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-19: (with DISCUSS)

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de]
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:24 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-
> fastreroute-mib-19: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:06:59PM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:37 AM
> > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'The IESG'
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-
> fastreroute-
> > > mib-19: (with DISCUSS)
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, I should have responded to this sooner...
> > >
> > > > 1. The latest change in the MIB module fixed the pre-allocation
> > > problem but
> > > > introduced another one. The LAST-UPDATED and REVISION clauses
> > > remained
> > > > unchanged at the level of the 2009 version. Now there are two
> sets of
> > > MIB
> > > > modules with the same dates in these clauses but different
> contents.
> > > This is not
> > > > acceptable. Please issue a new version with these clauses
> updated.
> > >
> > > Dan, you're wrong.
> > >
> > > The last-updated and revision clauses in Internet-Drafts have no
> > > meaning as the MIB modules in I-Ds are not to be implemented.
There
> was
> > > no 2009 version and no previous MIB module exists.
> > >
> > > I have lost count of the number of times MIB Doctors and ADs have
> > > beaten me up over this in MIB modules I have written, but it was
> often
> > > enough that I got the message.
> > >
> > > Quite how these fields get set in the published RFC defeats me,
but
> I
> > > suspect the RFC Editor should set them to match publication.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Adrian
> > >
> >
> > [[DR]] Adrian,
> >
> > Do you happen to have at hand an example of such a beating in the
> past?
> >
> > I agree that the final published version is to be set by the RFC
> Editor IF they perform any changes during the editing process.
However,
> intermediate versions need to be discriminated as well IMO, and the
> argument that 'MIB modules in I-Ds are not to be implemented' is a
good
> advice which is not always followed.
> >
> > MIB Doctors - can you help here with your advice?
> 
> I am not sure what the debate is really about but RFC 4181 says among
> other things:
> 
>    Note that after RFC publication, a REVISION clause is present only
>    for published versions of a MIB module and not for interim versions
>    that existed only as Internet-Drafts.  Thus, a draft version of a
> MIB
>    module MUST contain just one new REVISION clause that covers all
>    changes since the last published version (if any).
> 
> /js
> 

The debate is about the LAST-UPDATE and REVISION clauses remaining
unchanged in the MIB modules included in revisions 18 and 19 of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib/
despite the MIB modules having changed. 

Actually now I see that version 20 was issued and it fixed the issue, so
I am clearing my DISCUSS.

Regards,

Dan