Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11

[Benoit Claise]

Loa, Brian,

Brian, et.al.,

We could of course update 3812 (and 3813), though this would probably 
lead to another discussion on what updates means.


What is refereed to is that there is now another preferred method for
configuration - netconf/yang. In fact this draft doe not change 3812 or
propose a change, so there can not be an update. The document is just
noting that there is a change in the environment, and that for the time
being it will use RFC 3812 as specified.

Maybe Benoit have a take on this?
No strong views on updating RFC 3812, but the text in the intro section 
and the read-only conformance statement (WriteUp mentions: The MIB 
module has a read-only conformance statement so that vendors and/or 
network operators can choose to implement/operate the MIB module as 
read-only.) do the job IMO.


Regards, Benoit


/Loa

On 2017-01-16 06:04, Brian Carpenter wrote:

Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Issues

Gen-ART Last Call review of
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-01-16
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-26
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: Ready with minor issues


Comment:


I have not reviewed most details of the MIB module itself. As usual,
I trust the MIB Doctors.

"We know of a handful of implementations (or intent to implement)."
Good. It would have been nice to see an Implementation Status section
under RFC 6982.

Minor issues:
-

   At the time of writing, Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
SET
   is no longer recommended as a way to configure MPLS networks as
was
   described in RFC 3812 [RFC3812].

RFC3812 is explicit that it should be used for configuration:

   This MIB module should be used in conjunction with the
   companion document [RFC3813] for MPLS based traffic engineering
   configuration and management.

RFC3812 has not been formally updated or obsoleted. Therefore, it
seems
to me that the present draft should formally update RFC3812 in this
respect.

Does the same issue apply to RFC3813, whose Abstract also states that
it is used to configure an LSR?





___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11

[Loa Andersson]

Brian, et.al.,

We could of course update 3812 (and 3813), though this would probably 
lead to another discussion on what updates means.


What is refereed to is that there is now another preferred method for
configuration - netconf/yang. In fact this draft doe not change 3812 or
propose a change, so there can not be an update. The document is just
noting that there is a change in the environment, and that for the time
being it will use RFC 3812 as specified.

Maybe Benoit have a take on this?

/Loa

On 2017-01-16 06:04, Brian Carpenter wrote:

Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Issues

Gen-ART Last Call review of
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-01-16
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-26
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: Ready with minor issues


Comment:


I have not reviewed most details of the MIB module itself. As usual,
I trust the MIB Doctors.

"We know of a handful of implementations (or intent to implement)."
Good. It would have been nice to see an Implementation Status section
under RFC 6982.

Minor issues:
-

   At the time of writing, Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
SET
   is no longer recommended as a way to configure MPLS networks as
was
   described in RFC 3812 [RFC3812].

RFC3812 is explicit that it should be used for configuration:

   This MIB module should be used in conjunction with the
   companion document [RFC3813] for MPLS based traffic engineering
   configuration and management.

RFC3812 has not been formally updated or obsoleted. Therefore, it
seems
to me that the present draft should formally update RFC3812 in this
respect.

Does the same issue apply to RFC3813, whose Abstract also states that
it is used to configure an LSR?



--


Loa Anderssonemail: l...@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert  l...@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11

[Brian Carpenter]

Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Issues

Gen-ART Last Call review of
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-01-16
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-26
IESG Telechat date:  

Summary: Ready with minor issues


Comment:


I have not reviewed most details of the MIB module itself. As usual,
I trust the MIB Doctors.

"We know of a handful of implementations (or intent to implement)."
Good. It would have been nice to see an Implementation Status section
under RFC 6982.

Minor issues:
-

   At the time of writing, Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
SET
   is no longer recommended as a way to configure MPLS networks as
was
   described in RFC 3812 [RFC3812].

RFC3812 is explicit that it should be used for configuration:

   This MIB module should be used in conjunction with the
   companion document [RFC3813] for MPLS based traffic engineering
   configuration and management.

RFC3812 has not been formally updated or obsoleted. Therefore, it
seems
to me that the present draft should formally update RFC3812 in this
respect.

Does the same issue apply to RFC3813, whose Abstract also states that
it is used to configure an LSR?

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art