Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 16 January 2017 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C60212943A; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:48:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 eE6j4D0ZJ3d9; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43811129531; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:48:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [49.150.98.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 260B318013B2; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:48:32 +0100 (CET)
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <148451784736.3226.15889507299394185360.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <a35bfb84-091b-a408-9a53-0b6dbd5cd003@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:48:26 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <148451784736.3226.15889507299394185360.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/68i-NZlZioJxpqExaPvLbWgPz0k>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:48:41 -0000

Brian, et.al.,

We could of course update 3812 (and 3813), though this would probably 
lead to another discussion on what updates means.

What is refereed to is that there is now another preferred method for
configuration - netconf/yang. In fact this draft doe not change 3812 or
propose a change, so there can not be an update. The document is just
noting that there is a change in the environment, and that for the time
being it will use RFC 3812 as specified.

Maybe Benoit have a take on this?

/Loa

On 2017-01-16 06:04, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> Gen-ART Last Call review of
> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11
>
> 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
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11.txt
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review Date: 2017-01-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-26
> IESG Telechat date:
>
> Summary: Ready with minor issues
> --------
>
> Comment:
> --------
>
> I have not reviewed most details of the MIB module itself. As usual,
> I trust the MIB Doctors.
>
> "We know of a handful of implementations (or intent to implement)."
> Good. It would have been nice to see an Implementation Status section
> under RFC 6982.
>
> Minor issues:
> -------------
>
>    At the time of writing, Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
> SET
>    is no longer recommended as a way to configure MPLS networks as
> was
>    described in RFC 3812 [RFC3812].
>
> RFC3812 is explicit that it should be used for configuration:
>
>    This MIB module should be used in conjunction with the
>    companion document [RFC3813] for MPLS based traffic engineering
>    configuration and management.
>
> RFC3812 has not been formally updated or obsoleted. Therefore, it
> seems
> to me that the present draft should formally update RFC3812 in this
> respect.
>
> Does the same issue apply to RFC3813, whose Abstract also states that
> it is used to configure an LSR?
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64