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

Fair enough.

Regards
   Brian

On 17/01/2017 08:13, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote:
> Thanks Benoit-
> 
> As Loa confirmed, we don't see this as an update. It's aligned with how we have been doing the MPLS-TP work e.g. RFC7697 has the same wording.
> 
> Thanks Brian for the careful review-
> Deborah
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
>> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 2:35 AM
>> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>; Brian Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; gen-art@ietf.org
>> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11
>>
>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 