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

[Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

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;
- 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