Re: poll on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 22 February 2016 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB8F1A0173 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:46:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 6hG_vliWpb4C for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02EA11A0065 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:46:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=19957; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1456145182; x=1457354782; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=/OSPqwjkpCcmvxsBfaXOsMybEkwXawBjI0AObKjmOHU=; b=Iddjil8XQOoo4bihuu4IAURi23ISlq/5JRY46bwySLqXBguTVn4OSmTQ +GfHZF179+s7SGYd0+q6NRlyYYxAZ7mlxvY6UIL1gtFBGS1+UkgtQqOX2 7Z5Jn6EuKtehCIDuAJLQz/IpV8s7N/A8SuJ++jo8ULSx/SgdfwSwGpjs5 o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AbAgBsAstW/4ENJK1egm5MUm0GuksBDYFmhg0CHIEeOBQBAQEBAQEBZCeEQQEBAQQjClwCAQgRAwEBASgDAgICMBQJCAIEARKIGqkFjlABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEViU99hAURATQKFoJKgToFlwcBjV2BXIRDiFSOSAEeAQFCg2Rqhn80fQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,484,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="240247795"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 22 Feb 2016 12:46:21 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (xch-aln-015.cisco.com [173.36.7.25]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1MCkK0b004603 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:46:21 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 06:46:20 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 06:46:20 -0600
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: poll on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08
Thread-Topic: poll on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08
Thread-Index: AQHRZcD2LWK9o3cuBkyeT/9FOM/BiJ8oyHuAgA8wBHCAACrNgA==
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:46:20 +0000
Message-ID: <D2F06B9F.4D945%acee@cisco.com>
References: <A45E3A4B-AE6B-4790-BE8F-A2239BEC4221@ericsson.com> <D2E38B64.4D164%acee@cisco.com> <15133_1456139827_56CAEE33_15133_335_8_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92168BF984@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <15133_1456139827_56CAEE33_15133_335_8_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92168BF984@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.199]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D2F06B9F4D945aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/xo9ooqgXIzmxWiuc5BJTZDqGfqo>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:46:24 -0000

Hi Stephane,

From: Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com>>
Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:17 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com<mailto:jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: poll on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08

Hi Acee,

The main question behind : is there any interest for vendors to implement it and operators to use it ?
Or : Are people more focused now on YANG and so it’s better to convert this work into a YANG work ? (note that we already embed some FRR informations in IGP models but it’s not 100% mapped to this MIB proposal).

YANG is clearly the direction to replace MIBs as formally stated by the IESG at 1-2 years ago.  The argument for completion is that we started the work many years ago and, if it is ready for publication, why not go ahead. OTH, if there are no implementations or plans for implementation then maybe it is best to simply drop it.

Thanks,
Acee



Best Regards,

Stephane

From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 19:17
To: Jeff Tantsura; rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: poll on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08

Hey Jeff,
I say that if the authors are committed, we go ahead and complete it. If not, we drop it.
Thanks,
Acee

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com<mailto:jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>>
Date: Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:12 PM
To: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: poll on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08

Dear RTGWG,

We are considering further progress of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08 and would like to poll the wg to see whether there’s enough interest to proceed with this work, i.e. WGLC.
Please respond, especially if you feel this work has to continue, also - please let us know if there are any existing implementations.

Many thanks and see you in Buenos Aires.

Jeff & Chris

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.