Re: BFD MIB extension for MPLS-TP

[Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]>]

[apologies for the delayed reply]

Hi Ross, George and Loa,

As Jeff has eluded to in the email, the MIB work for TP could all be within MPLS WG, even though the extensions are being done to support other areas like BFD. 

The draft was intentionally published within BFD WG as the extension is being done, in order to support MPLS including TP extensions, for the existing BFD MIB. When I presented at Taipei, the question was asked by AD that the adoption should be taken up within BFD WG, as draft belongs to BFD WG.

If I have to ask for WG adoption within MPLS WG, I need to move the draft to MPLS. I do not have any personal preference on where it should belong, as long as it gets adopted and we could proceed to finish the work.

So, could you please give us the guidance on how to proceed further? We are ready with new version of the draft, which we would like to submit ASAP.

Thanks in advance
-sam
On Jan 8, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:

> [cc: mpls chairs]
> 
> Sam,
> 
> I believe this MIB is in scope for the BFD WG 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."
> 
> However, there's also some argument to keep all of the MPLS-TP MIB work
> together in the MPLS WG.
> 
> Most of the MPLS-TP work, including MIBs, is occurring in the MPLS WG.
> Doing a cursory review of the two other drafts you presented in the same
> session, there is no strong binding from the oam-id or te-mib to the BFD
> MPLS-TP MIB, but the MPLS-TP BFD MIB has a strong dependency on the oam-id
> MIB.  The MPLS-TP BFD MIB depends on a common index from the bfd session
> table.  Given these dependencies, it seems to make some some sense to keep
> the MPLS-TP MIB work bundled together in on group.
> 
> I was not at IETF 82. Per the MPLS WG minutes it sounds like there is
> some debate as to which WG would cover this work.  I personally have no
> strong preference as to which group is in the draft name since the BFD WG
> will be providing review, per charter, regardless of which group it is in.
> 
> With that, I pass the WG adoption token back to the MPLS chairs.  We're
> happy to take on the work if you don't want it.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 08:17:24PM -0800, Sam Aldrin wrote:
>> Hello BFD WG,
>> 
>> 
>> We have submitted a new draft, BFD MIB extensions to support MPLS-TP, prior
>> to IETF82 at Taipei.
>> 
>> The draft is located at
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vkst-bfd-mpls-mib/
>> 
>> 
>> We have presented the draft in MPLS WG to get feedback from that WG.
>> 
>> As there was no WG session at Taipei, we are seeking feedback from BFD WG
>> over the mailing list.
>> 
>> 
>> The MIB extension is fairly simple and adds few new objects to extend the
>> exiting BFD MIB and support BFD sessions over TP tunnels. Please provide
>> your feedback and comments, so that, we could take it forward and ask to
>> make it a WG document.
>> 
>> 
>> Appreciate your time.
>> 
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> -sam