Re: [RTG-DIR] what is so bad

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,
One example of "what is bad" is the cases when drafts reach advanced stage (or even are published as RFCs) with serious technical problems/gaps.

E.g., I have just now submitted an Errata to RFC 7257 "Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Management Information Base" reporting what I see as a serious technical gap in an RFC that has been published earlier this month.

Another example is, IMO, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label: in this case the authors have discovered a serious bug in an already published RFC 6970 that requires deprecation of one of its elements.

While these case may be relatively rare, the definitely fall under the general category of "what is bad" IMO.

I cannot point to any specific organizational or process change that would reduce the number of these cases. But at least it makes sense to me to consider them as valid use cases for estimating such changes.

My 2c,
       Sasha 
Email: [e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtg-dir [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John Scudder
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:24 PM
> To: Giles Heron (giheron)
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Andrew G. Malis; Susan Hares; Loa
> Andersson
> Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] what is so bad
> 
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 7:12 AM, "Giles Heron (giheron)" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > I think my point was rather that I'm not sure metrics are what we should be
> concentrating on in this debate.  Numbers can be made to say just about
> anything, after all ;)
> 
> That was more-or-less the point I had been waiting to make when we ran out
> of time yesterday. That, plus, bad (or the wrong) metrics are worse than no
> metrics, so take care.
> 
> --John

--- Begin Message ---

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7257,
"Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Management Information Base".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7257&eid=4059

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein <[e-mail]>

Section: 6

Original Text
-------------
N/A - this is about some missing MIB objects that should be there

Corrected Text
--------------
N/A - this is hardly the right place to define missing MIB objects

Notes
-----
As per RFC 4762 (which defines at least one of the two VPLS types for which this RFC defines Management Information Base), Virtual Switching Instance (VSI)(a local representation of a given VPLS instance within a given PE) is connected to CE devices via Attachment Circuits (AC). Hence I would expect that Management Information Base for VPLS would provide for some representation of ACs that perform this function for a given VSI.

However, this RFC does not even mention attachment circuits in any way.

I have tried to raise this issue with the WG and the authors. One of the authors has replied (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/current/msg04539.html) that "ACs are attached to the VPLS instances and are represented as IfMIB entries". However, neither Interfaces MIB nor any of its key elements (e.g., ifIndex) are mentioned in this RFC.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC7257 (draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib-15)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Management Information Base
Publication Date    : July 2014
Author(s)           : T. Nadeau, Ed., A. Kiran Koushik, Ed., R. Mediratta, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

--- End Message ---