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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Loa had forwarded the following response that was partially posted:

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: Adoption of draft-vkst-bfd-mpls-mib
> > Date: June 5, 2012 10:38:03 PM EDT
> > To: Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>, David Ward <[e-mail]>
> > 
> > hmmm tried to figure out the bfd chairs alias, but have yo give up
> > 
> > /Loq
> > 
> > On 2012-06-06 04:30, Loa Andersson wrote:
> >> resend with what i hope is the correct address
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 2012-06-06 04:28, Loa Andersson wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Folks,
> >>> 
> >>> this is intended to be a rtg-bfd document, isn't it? If so the guidance
> >>> should from the from the rtg-bfd chairs.
> >>> 
> >>> mpls chairs will support and help with reviews.
> >>> 
> >>> My experience aldo tells me that it is a good idea to eep the
> >>> mib-doctors in the loop.

Question: Do we have a responsibility to ITU to provide configuration MIBs
for MPLS-TP?  If so, since a MPLS-TP BFD MIB would build on a BFD MIB, we
would need to keep read-write.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it sounds like there may be
consumers of BFD read-create objects already.  As much as I tend to agree
with Tom and company that writeable MIBs are a bad idea, we may be stuck
with it.

That said, bfdModuleReadOnlyCompliance, documents a read-only conformance
for the MIB.  It is thus possible to implement this MIB without permitting
configuration.

-- Jeff

> >>> 
> >>> /Loa
> >>> 
> >>> On 2012-06-06 02:42, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
> >>>> Hi Tom,
> >>>> yes, you can count me in. As for "guidance from the WG chairs", Which
> >>>> working group should provide such guidance - RTG-BFD or MPLS?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Greg
> >>>> 
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 4:55 PM
> >>>> To: Gregory Mirsky
> >>>> Cc: Jeffrey Haas; [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: Re: Adoption of draft-vkst-bfd-mpls-mib
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 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
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > 
> > Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
> > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> > Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> >                                              [phone]
>