RE: WGLC for BFD base MIB and TC - ends November 8

["Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Nits have been addressed, and new IDs have been posted (1 taken care of).

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-mib-15
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-03

Jeff, if would like me to engage MIB doctors (2), then please let me know. Otherwise I'll assume that you will.

-Nobo
(for BFD base/TC MIB authors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 5:29 PM
> To: Jeffrey Haas
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD base MIB and TC - ends November 8
> 
> BFDers,
> 
> The BFD co-chairs asked me to gauge consensus on this WG Last Call for
> draft-ietf-bfd-mib-14 and draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-02. The WGLC ended this
> past Friday.
> 
> In my view, there is good support for these two documents, including from
> implementors, and consensus to move forward and be sent to the IESG.
> 
> Before that, the following needs to be taken into account:
> 1. Fix the Nits identified by idnits [1] [2] 2. Ask the OPS ADs for a MIB Doctor
> review [3] ("after the Working Group Last Call and before the IETF Last Call")
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Carlos.
> 
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bfd-
> mib-14.txt
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bfd-tc-
> mib-02.txt
> [3] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/mib-doctors.html
> 
> 
> On Oct 24, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > This email is to initiate working group last call on the BFD MIB and
> > Textual-Convention documents:
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-mib-14
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-02
> >
> > The last call will complete on November 8, the end of IETF week.  Time
> > will be available during the Vancouver IETF BFD session to discuss
> > last call comments.
> >
> > I will be serving as document shepherd (RFC 4858) for this WGLC.
> >
> > Due to the small nature of the BFD working group and the fact that
> > both working group chairs have contributed to the documents, we have
> > gotten Carlos Pignataro ([e-mail]) to volunteer to serve as
> > an independent party to gauge working group consensus.
> >
> > In order to facilitate the transparency of this WGLC, please remember
> > to send all comments to the working group mailing list.
> >
> > As is often the case with MIB documents, implementations typically do
> > not exist for the final form of the document.  Typically enterprise
> > MIBs are implemented at some point in the document life cycle and then
> > later the implementor will revise to match the published RFC,
> > including OID code-points assigned by IANA.  Reviewers examining the
> > MIB against deployed implementations are requested to bear in mind
> > implementability of the final document vs. existence proof of the running
> code.
> >
> > Finally, note that no IPR polling has been done for these documents.
> > MIBs, being IETF data models of things that themselves may have IPR,
> > tend not to have IPR against them.  However, if someone is aware of
> > IPR against these documents, please state it for the WG.
> >
> > -- Jeff (for the chairs)