Re: draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-06 (was Re: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-05)

Venkatesan Mahalingam <venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com> Sat, 19 September 2015 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C421B1A90CF for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4XTOl4m7gEBF for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E9891A90C4 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbvu2 with SMTP id vu2so34344034lbb.0 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pl/PCr2HYizDLmnf3BQUs48jVyqIVaDpFmltfmxhA7M=; b=Iz9fEaxNBV0enqY8B01AtxCqt0EIT9xBfDEVJDWIupTD+S5hU9TeUyTZH93ZRgb9/P xTjlJzxRy28n8jUx6+SuZyTIO/gdiZfQQgxZ+F5lDXgV4zUgxqg1fvw4Kn1gd7RZjDYq rqf7HoZfGcI6b6wzxUHW2oOmKEEPsRX5cNDRaRNE6KtsHHUuFuD+Ga3KyRJjx/7HiOKB rLCyZjDuPalbxsXMQEkKYpC4JafNFEKXTurVcAFiIBcQxcSZC7j7cqCgWxgq7qK/YWx4 A+2oqQP56fn9e0aVxavk8hgdHInhlVDhBwB9RBNgX9GLhpEsgS0ZMqDJAL8ztEidv0xU fIEQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.204.9 with SMTP id ku9mr4567447lac.51.1442652051866; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.22.94 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150918174320.GA32318@pfrc.org>
References: <20141230172539.GA25357@pfrc> <20150918174320.GA32318@pfrc.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:40:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+UNA02MZYhexRh3-VtPCNEOmtMfYRw8_fE8h61YO50OgPW5vQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-06 (was Re: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-05)
From: Venkatesan Mahalingam <venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134386e160a2e0520159b42"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/ilhGUG8UjnAj62_LII-cFUfIA_k>
Cc: "draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib@tools.ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 08:40:56 -0000

Jeff,

Thanks.

Please see in-line my replies.

-Venkat,

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

> Authors of the BFD MPLS MIB,
>
> Thanks for addressing the majority of my comments during MIB review.  Only
> a
> few items have remained without any response:
>
> - Splitting the TCs into IANA maintained modules.  Do you intend to just
>   wait until we have MIB doctor review and see if they require it?
>
Yes.

> The other items are below and at least need reply.
>
> Beyond addressing these two items, what are the authors' beliefs about the
> state of the MIB?  Ready for Last Call and/or MIB Doctor review?
>
Yes, ready for Last Call, we'll fix the remaining comments as part of Last
Call.


> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:25:39PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > The bfdMplsSessPerfTable consists only of Counter32 objects.  Practice
> > appears to use paired Counter64 "High Capacity" counters.  Are these
> being
> > left out for any specific reason?
>
We dont expect a big counter value so, Counter32 is enough.

> > One final comment is that no NOTIFICATIONs are defined for this MIB.
> While
> > not strictly required, an operator has no indication that a given
> > NOTIFICATION in the underlying RFC 7331 MIB is for sessions that may
> change
> > state for reasons having to do with underlying MPLS session association.
>
As we augment the existing BFD Session MIB for MPLS, whatever notifications
present in BFD session MIB will be applicable for MPLS BFD session also.

> > One possibility that comes to mind to address this is to add a
> > recommendation that the bfdSessUp/bfdSessDown NOTIFICATIONS receive an
> > additional OBJECTS entry of bfdMplsSessMapPointer.  The one obvious
> counter
> > to such a practice is this may disrupt the low/high range optimization in
> > the base NOTIFICATION.
> >
>
Do we really need an additional entry bfdMplsSessMapPointer in the
notification?

> > -- Jeff
>