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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

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?
>>
>