Re: [mpls] seeking consensus on making draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib read-only

I'd like to change my decision to "Support" based on Cisco-wide consensus to 
support read-only MIBs in the future.

Thanks
Kiran

On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Agrahara Kiran Koushik <kkoushik@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Oppose.
> 
> At present all the TP MIB implementations within Cisco are read-only. But we need the MIBs to be read-write/create
> to handle future requirements.
> 
> Thanks
> Kiran
> 
> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com>
>>> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014
>>> Subject: seeking consensus on making draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib read-only
>>> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
>>> Cc: "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib@tools.ietf.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Oppose.
>>> 
>>> In our implementation we need read-write/read-create access for the TE and LSR extensions.
>>> 
>>> Specifically, the new functionality provided by mplsIdGlobalId, mplsIdNodeId and mplsTunnelExtNodeConfigTable can only be realized by read-write/read-create objects.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Muly Ilan
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:55 AM
>>> To: mpls@ietf.org
>>> Cc: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib@tools.ietf.org
>>> Subject: [mpls] seeking consensus on making draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib read-only
>>> 
>>> Working Group,
>>> 
>>> We have just recalled draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib from the IESG to the working group for more work. We have a series of comments that are mostly for clarification. However the main reason for recalling the document is that there is one point where we need to confirm working group consensus.
>>> 
>>> The IETF, the working group and the MIB Doctors are today very reluctant to produce read-write MIB modules. The current draft is read-write for a few objects, this is based on a consensus call for an earlier discussion, however the consensus call was not clear. It can be taken to mean both that we want to go with read-write objects and that we want to see read-only. Is it clear that it has been interpreted differently by different individuals.
>>> 
>>> The authors and chairs have discussed the issue and we have a rough consensus that we want the MIB module(s) to be read-only.
>>> 
>>> We therefore are asking the working group if this is OK for the MIB
>>> module(s) in the current document. Please indicate Support or Oppose for this MIB (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib) to be read-only.
>>> 
>>> Please send your comments to the working group mailing list before February 18, 2014.
>>> 
>>> Loa
>>> for the MPLS wg chairs
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 