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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 16 January 2017 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 EDFD21294B6; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:34:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.721 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 FsREPuDG9i3U; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3185012951E; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:34:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2775; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1484552086; x=1485761686; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rNxbQUlqE7kaxlW2qVqTNQv1KvWX/FQAuvSibfzybz8=; b=IM4gEkVfMifTwLzPg7O0DQpW9Url0PsgPxiSU3MPRuau1jbhPISCuctK 8JAZcYM0gkQ4xgY09NDikdLD/+1fk/gRVp1RH4cpnYRKEwARsfZvVzlUR wWCMNA7RGXmZJ+q31RriDbzstyERuAtMJf5woIi3DinDNABgk6A2hVirH E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AyAQCTdnxY/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgzkBAQEBAX4DJ18Bg1CKB3KRI4x3iDWCCyqFeAKCXBgBAgEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQFjKIRqAQUjFUEQCxQEAgImAgJXBgEMCAEBiH8OrX6CJYl/AQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBIIELhTqCAoJlh06CXgEEiHqSQIZdiwKBd1GEPYMqI4YbiBqCV4d?= =?us-ascii?q?7HziBFRIIFRWGbT02iG0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,238,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="691383072"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2017 07:34:41 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0G7Yfkx010200; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:34:41 GMT
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
References: <148451784736.3226.15889507299394185360.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <a35bfb84-091b-a408-9a53-0b6dbd5cd003@pi.nu>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <54feb39c-0e5b-9c12-0ae2-d5757316c9c3@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 08:34:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a35bfb84-091b-a408-9a53-0b6dbd5cd003@pi.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/T6vxixSYgo5ZonKmDqbgBF6hPyo>
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 07:34:48 -0000

Loa, Brian,
> 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?
No strong views on updating RFC 3812, but the text in the intro section 
and the read-only conformance statement (WriteUp mentions: The MIB 
module has a read-only conformance statement so that vendors and/or 
network operators can choose to implement/operate the MIB module as 
read-only.) do the job IMO.

Regards, Benoit
>
> /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?
>>
>