draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-06 (was Re: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-05)

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Authors of the BFD MPLS MIB,

Thanks for addressing the majority of my comments during MIB review.  Only a
few items have remained without any response:

- Splitting the TCs into IANA maintained modules.  Do you intend to just
  wait until we have MIB doctor review and see if they require it?

The other items are below and at least need reply.

Beyond addressing these two items, what are the authors' beliefs about the
state of the MIB?  Ready for Last Call and/or MIB Doctor review?

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:25:39PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> The bfdMplsSessPerfTable consists only of Counter32 objects.  Practice
> appears to use paired Counter64 "High Capacity" counters.  Are these being
> left out for any specific reason?
> 
> One final comment is that no NOTIFICATIONs are defined for this MIB.  While
> not strictly required, an operator has no indication that a given
> NOTIFICATION in the underlying RFC 7331 MIB is for sessions that may change
> state for reasons having to do with underlying MPLS session association.  
> 
> One possibility that comes to mind to address this is to add a
> recommendation that the bfdSessUp/bfdSessDown NOTIFICATIONS receive an
> additional OBJECTS entry of bfdMplsSessMapPointer.  The one obvious counter
> to such a practice is this may disrupt the low/high range optimization in
> the base NOTIFICATION.
> 
> -- Jeff