Hi Adrian, As clarified in my response to Nobo, I raised the concern about writable MIB modules primarily as a process check (I was expecting to find something on this topic in the shepherd writeup, and didn't). In particular, this concern was not intended as a strong reason not to publish, and I have no disagreements with any of the points in your message below. With you on top of this and the OPS folks sure to notice, I have no doubt that this will get suitably addressed, although it might be simpler to ensure that the OPS Area is ok now rather than waiting for IESG Evaluation. Thanks, --David (in part, wearing his OPS Directorate member "hat"). > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 5:55 PM > To: Black, David; tnadeau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; zali@xxxxxxxxx; nobo@xxxxxxxxx; > 'General Area Review Team' > Cc: rtg-bfd@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17 > > Hi David, > > Thanks for the review. > > To pick out one of your points: > > > This MIB contains many writable objects, so the authors should > > take note of the IESG statement on writable MIB modules: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html > > > > I did not see this mentioned in the shepherd writeup. If the OPS Area > > has not been consulted, I strongly suggest doing so during IETF Last > > Call, e.g., starting with Benoit Claise (AD). > > The OPS Directorate and the MIB Doctors will have been alerted to this > document > by the last call and we can expect their comments. > > But this question was discussed between the AD and the authors, and the AD was > unlikely to agree to sponsor the document if he felt it went against the IESG > statement. Our discussion resulted in some reduction of writeable objects. > > I think there are several points to consider: > 1. This document had already been completed and publication requested (i.e. > shepherd write-up written) at the time of the IESG statement. It would be > unreasonable to make the statement retrospective. > 2. There are already various implementations in equipment (not just management > stations) of proprietary modules approximating to this document and these > support write-access. > 3. This is a low-level component protocol of the sort that is used on dumber > devices and that is an area where write-access is more common. > > Cheers, > Adrian > >