Re: Adoption of draft-vkst-bfd-mpls-mib

[Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 5, 2012:2:35 PM, at 2:35 PM, Gregory Mirsky wrote:

> Dear Chairs, Authors, et al.,
> I think that this is needed work but the document needs some modifications:
> - read-create objects can be modified into read-only as no firm requirement to support SNMP based configuration can be found;

	Are you asking us to specifically make the MIB read-only?  If so, this would be at least the second request recently (third if you include mine).  However, it might be good to get some guidance from the WG chairs on this direction as making these changes can be potentially significant.

	--Tom


> - bfdMplsSessTable lacks object to reflect whether Coordinated or Independent monitoring mode being used per RFC 6428;
> - bfdMplsSessTmrNegotiate object is non-standard and is not MPLS specific but is expression of local policy set by an operator. The bfdMplsSessTmrNegotiate should be removed from the bfdMplsSessTable table;
> - list of modes for the bfdMplsSessMode object should include a mode, perhaps referred as bfd, which performs continuity check but does not support RDI functionality (RFC 5884 and RFC 5885);
> - bfdMplsSessTable needs to reflect addressing used if bfdMplsSessMapType = mep(6) - IP or ICC;
> - bfdMplsSessTable needs to reflect encapsulation type, IP or ACH/G-ACh, being used.
> 
> 	Regards,
> 		Greg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 8:13 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Adoption of draft-vkst-bfd-mpls-mib
> 
> Working Group,
> 
> This begins a one week poll for the adoption of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vkst-bfd-mpls-mib
> as a working group document.
> 
> Note that this appears to be currently within the scope of our charter:
> 
> : 1. Develop the MIB module for BFD and submit it to the IESG for publication
> : as a Proposed Standard. 
> : 
> : 5. Assist in the standardization of the BFD protocol for MPLS-TP. The
> : preferred solution will be interoperable with the current BFD specification. 
> 
> If our ADs disagree, we'll ask for a formal charter change to pick up this item.
> 
> The room discussion regarding this draft during IETF 83 was positive.
> 
> -- Jeff
>