Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-04.txt

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Sun, 07 January 2018 05:22 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87y3larkia.wl-jch@irif.fr>
References: <00a801d3850a$e4eb7640$aec262c0$@ndzh.com> <87incg183q.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CAF4+nEEO8WE=SmKT8kXT4Om0PKiKz9t4bCqP72Ys7MvREb3=og@mail.gmail.com> <87y3larkia.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2018 00:21:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEFGFkHhi2B9F1u-S-bO==gF5V+SUquydtk7jHRVjCMnqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, Russ White <russ@riw.us>, rtg-dir@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/uO19fx-9O4kYMrXKN7DzNH_yxqI>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-04.txt
Precedence: list

Hi Juliusz,

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
> Hi Donald,
>
>> there are many in the IETF who would consider the specification of
>> a routing protocol that says nothing about management to be incomplete.
>
> I think I disagree with that opinion.  For what it's worth, and unless
> I've missed something, neither RFC 2328 (which is one of my favourite
> RFCs) nor RFC 4271 (of which Susan happens to be a co-author) say anything
> about management.  The only place I can find anything about management in
> RFC 5340 is the reference to the MIB.

RFC 4271 = 2006 BGP-4; BGP MIBs were defined starting with RFC 1269 in 1991
RFC 2328 = 1998 OSPF v2, RFC 5340 = 2008 OSPF for IPv6; OSPF MIBs were
defined starting with RFC 1248 in 1991

Times change. Back then SNMP was the management protocol for the IETF.
It was just automatically assumed that if a MIB was specified for a
protocol, then you would manage it with SNMP.

Perhaps a better and more recent example of a new routing protocol is
RFC 6550 which has an extensive Manageability Considerations section
and which references RFC 5706 (Guidelines for Considering Operations
and Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions).

>> Management messages are sent on-the-wire.
>
> It's a different (virtual) wire.
>
>> for example, saying that BABEL implementations SHOULD support NETCONF,
>> a YANG model will be in a separate document,
>
> I am fairly sure that such a statement would not reflect WG consensus.
> Requiring a full YANG implementation (which includes, for a start, an XML
> parser) in every Babel implementation would be a sure way to kill the
> protocol.

SHOULD does not equal "requiring". In any case, that wording was just
an example cloned from RFC 6325.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

>> and providing some specific enumeration of the knobs
>
> I believe that would be Appendix B.
>
> -- Juliusz

[RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-babel-r… Susan Hares
Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Juliusz Chroboczek
Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Donald Eastlake
Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Juliusz Chroboczek
Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Juliusz Chroboczek
Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Susan Hares
Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Susan Hares
[RTG-DIR] About Babel management [was: RTG-DIR QA… Juliusz Chroboczek
Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Juliusz Chroboczek
Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Donald Eastlake
Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Juliusz Chroboczek
Re: [RTG-DIR] [babel] About Babel management [was… Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
Re: [RTG-DIR] [babel] About Babel management [was… Susan Hares
Re: [RTG-DIR] [babel] About Babel management [was… Juliusz Chroboczek
Re: [RTG-DIR] [babel] About Babel management [was… STARK, BARBARA H
Re: [RTG-DIR] [babel] About Babel management [was… Alexander Vainshtein