On Apr 18, 2014:5:41 AM, at 5:41 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 18/04/2014 04:17, Nobo Akiya (nobo) wrote: >> 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. > This is in essence what https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html says. > > Regards, Benoit. Yes, this is why we left the writable stuff in - and why I recently spent about 4 hours doing Adrian's edits around support of such things. Lets please put the discussion around read-write to bed for these two modules as they clearly were well under way and complete by the time the statement came out. --Tom >> >> -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 >> . >> > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail