Hi Sam, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam K. Aldrin [mailto:aldrin.ietf@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:24 PM > To: Nobo Akiya (nobo) > Cc: Jeffrey Haas; ietf@xxxxxxxx; 'Black, David'; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; rtg- > bfd@xxxxxxxx; Zafar Ali (zali); 'General Area Review Team' > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17 > > Hi Nobo, > [sorry for the top post] > > Yes, this is an old MIB and was in existence for a long time. > My only concern is with the new extension MIB's. If the base MIB (this MIB) > has write access, future extension MIB's may be forced to support write- > access. And that is the painful part, where community at large has not > shown interest in developing write-access MIB's at IETF, lest > implementation. > > I want to re-iterate again, I am not objecting or proposing an alternative > option. Just wanted to get clarification, so that, we don't have to burn cycles > and do the exercise again, when we have to review these new extension > MIB's. That's a good point, it would be good to have this clarified for future work. IMO: For new charters, IESG encourages NETCONF/YANG. This means S-BFD (if gets included in the charter) should look into NETCONF/YANG (i.e. not extension to the BFD base MIB). For currently chartered BFD tasks, the BFD WG should continue with writable MIB. Large part of that is the BFD base & MPLS MIBs which [painful] writable effort is mostly done already. -Nobo > > -sam > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Nobo Akiya (nobo) wrote: > > > Hi Sam, > > > >>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:11:15PM -0700, Sam K. Aldrin wrote: > >>>> %sam - If this MIB allows write access, do you/WG anticipate, any > >> extension to the MIB should also provide write-access as well? For > example: > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib/ augments > >> this base MIB to support MPLS. It adds more confusion than solving > >> the issue as base MIB supports write-access, but augmented/ MIB > extension doesn't. > >>>> > >>>> As the BFD MIB authors were not supportive of write-access objects > >>>> in > >> the MIBs, why to have them in the first place? > >>> > >>> As noted in earlier mailing list chatter, there is some support for > >>> write access in existing implementations. Given the lack of > >>> significant detail when pressed for the name of such an > >>> implementation, I'm suspecting smaller vendor or internal > >>> implementation. That's still sufficient to leave write available. > >>> > >>> Given that one of the original contexts of asking if we could remove > >>> write was whether IETF was being asked to provide such a thing for > >>> MPLS-TP with related impact on your extension MIB and the answer was > >>> "no", that shouldn't be the main criteria. > >> No. The context of my question is not related to MPLS-TP as such, but > >> write- access support in general. > >> I should have added 'clarification' in my earlier email. > >>> > >>> My suspicion is that if we were to ship the base MIB with writeable > >>> objects, we may be forced to consider similar things for the > >>> extension > >> MIB(s). > >> Both, bfd-mpls and mpls-TP MIB's are extensions to base MIBs, MPLS-TE > >> and BFD-MIB respectively, with write-access. Had to do write-access > >> because of the reason you've mentioned above, which is base MIB. It > >> would be painful to publish/support write-access MIB's when there is > >> no clear interest. Hence my clarification question. > > > > This mentions three vendors wanting to implement MIB as writable. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg01382.html > > > > And one more vendor voicing for writable. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg01397.html > > > > I agree that defining & wording writable MIB is much more painful than all > read-only MIB. But above thread indicates the desire by multiple vendors to > implement writable BFD MIB. Therefore it does seem that there are > interests, and going forward with write-access will benefit the community. > And with *ReadOnlyCompliance defined, BFD MIB can also accommodate > those implementing them as just read-only. > > > > -Nobo > > > >> > >> -sam > >> > >>> > >>> -- Jeff > >