Skip to main content

Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management
draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2014-08-12
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2014-07-28
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2014-07-21
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2014-07-21
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA
2014-07-21
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on ADs
2014-07-08
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT
2014-06-19
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on ADs from Waiting on Authors
2014-06-09
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-06-09
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-06-09
08 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-06-06
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-06-06
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-06-06
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-06-06
08 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2014-06-06
08 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-06-06
08 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2014-06-06
08 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2014-06-06
08 Adrian Farrel IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement sent
2014-06-06
08 Adrian Farrel IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed
2014-06-02
08 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2014-05-29
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2014-05-29
08 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2014-05-28
08 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-05-28
08 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2014-05-28
08 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Not really a blocking factor (DISCUSS), but it would nice if the situation would be clarified.
As mentioned by Bert Wijnen, part of …
[Ballot comment]
Not really a blocking factor (DISCUSS), but it would nice if the situation would be clarified.
As mentioned by Bert Wijnen, part of the MIB doctors review:

  BfdIntervalTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT  "d"
    STATUS        current
    DESCRIPTION
        "The BFD interval in microseconds."
    SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)


  If you see it used in, for example

    bfdSessDesiredMinTxInterval OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX    BfdIntervalTC
        MAX-ACCESS read-create
        STATUS    current
        DESCRIPTION
            "This object specifies the minimum interval, in
            microseconds, that the local system would like to use
            when transmitting BFD Control packets. The value of
            zero(0) is reserved in this case, and should not be
            used."
        REFERENCE
            "Section 4.1 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional
            Forwarding Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2012."
        ::= { bfdSessEntry 25 }

  Then what value is added by using a TC. In fact you can even question if it
  is not conflicting, because according to the TC description clause I would
  expect zero to be a valid interval value, where as here it describes
  that zero is a special value and should not be used. So it is only special
  Since it should NOT BE used, or does zero mean something special?
  Assuming zero SHOULD NOT be used. I personally would just do:

    bfdSessDesiredMinTxInterval OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295)
        MAX-ACCESS read-create
        STATUS    current
        UNITS      microseconds
        DESCRIPTION
            "This object specifies the minimum interval that the local
            system would like to use when transmitting BFD Control packets.
        REFERENCE
            "Section 4.1 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional
            Forwarding Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2012."
        ::= { bfdSessEntry 25 }

BENOIT: the alternative is to have the following TC and to simplify the defintion
  BfdIntervalTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT  "d"
    STATUS        current
    DESCRIPTION
        "The BFD interval in microseconds."
    SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295)



  In case zero has special meaning I would do:
    bfdSessDesiredMinTxInterval OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0 | 1..4294967295)
        MAX-ACCESS read-create
        STATUS    current
        UNITS      microseconds
        DESCRIPTION
            "This object specifies the minimum interval that the local
            system would like to use when transmitting BFD Control packets.
            The value zero has been reserved for a special meaning:
           
        REFERENCE
            "Section 4.1 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional
            Forwarding Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2012."
        ::= { bfdSessEntry 25 }
2014-05-28
08 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2014-05-28
08 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-05-27
08 Alia Atlas
[Ballot comment]
The description for BfdCtrlSourcePortNumberTC lacks what the port is expected
to be though leaving the range open is described the same as for …
[Ballot comment]
The description for BfdCtrlSourcePortNumberTC lacks what the port is expected
to be though leaving the range open is described the same as for the BfdCtrlDestPortNumberTC.
This looks like a bit of copy-and-paste.  I'd assume that the source port can be anything in the
range referenced (i.e.  "Port 49152..65535 from RFC5881") and the description text should be
clarified/updated.
2014-05-27
08 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2014-05-27
08 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-05-26
08 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-05-26
08 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-05-25
08 Christer Holmberg Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg.
2014-05-24
08 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot comment]
looks like mib doctors et al have no discussion going on that will result in changes.
2014-05-24
08 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-05-24
08 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2014-05-23
08 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-05-22
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2014-05-22
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2014-05-14
08 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-05-14
08 Nobo Akiya IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2014-05-14
08 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-08.txt
2014-05-13
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2014-05-13
07 Christer Holmberg Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg.
2014-05-12
07 Adrian Farrel IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Point Raised - writeup needed
2014-05-12
07 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued
2014-05-12
07 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-05-12
07 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2014-05-09
07 Adrian Farrel Removed telechat returning item indication
2014-05-09
07 Adrian Farrel Telechat date has been changed to 2014-05-29 from 2014-05-15
2014-05-08
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2014-05-08
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2014-05-08
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Warren Kumari.
2014-05-02
07 Jeffrey Haas
: Document Writeup
:
: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
: Shepherd Write-Up.
:
: Changes …
: Document Writeup
:
: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
: Shepherd Write-Up.
:
: Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
:
: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
: Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
: is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
: title page header?

Proposed Standard.  The draft meets the criteria in RFC 2026, Sec. 4.1.1.
The type is properly indicated in the title page header.

: (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
: Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
: examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
: documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
:

Technical Summary

  This memo defines an portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or
  monitor Bi-Directional Forwarding Detection for [RFC5880], [RFC5881]
  and [RFC5883], BFD versions 0 and/or 1, on devices supporting this
  feature.

This document also includes writable SNMP objects.  While such objects have been recommended to be discontinued in IETF MIBs by the IESG, BFD represents a low-level components where configuration of such functionality may be appropriate for some scenarios.  Additionally, write-access has already been implemented by some vendors. 

A further review comment brought up during review is with regards to BFD version 0.  This MIB does not provide a specific conformance statement for that protocol profile for two reasons: BFD Version 0 never made it to RFC status due to a critical failure in the design of its state machine.  In the field, pretty much every vendor has moved to BFD version 1.  The second reason is that the only MIB impacting change is the IANAbfdSessStateTC impacting a single state that is otherwise not present in BFD 1.  The authors of the MIB made a brief comment in the text noting that BFD v0 is historical and that is as much as should be done in the context of a MIB.  I am of the opinion that any other document in the RFC series describing this history given the lack of publication of version 0 as an RFC, is probably excessive.

Working Group Summary

  This document received commentary from multiple individuals that have had
  prior SNMP MIB authoring and implementation experience.  The document was
  also reviewed in the context of additional BFD work besides providing
  base MIB functionality for the above RFCs.  This includes BFD
  multi-point, BFD over LAG.  It also has been reviewed as being the basis
  MIB for the BFD MPLS MIB.

Document Quality

  As is typical with MIB documents, several vendors implement the contents
  of the BFD MIB in various enterprise MIBs with greater or lesser
  attention paid to the exact structure of this document.  MIBs are seldom
  fully finished at vendors until the publication of the MIB as an RFC
  wherein all the code points are finalized with IANA and other
  authorities.

  In particular, the Textual-Convention draft covers various TCs that do
  not share consistent implementations across the vendors.  By publishing
  an RFC, these code points will become normalized across the vendors.

  Being a MIB document, review by the MIB doctors is always appreciated.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Jeffrey Haas
  Responsible AD: Adrian Farrel

: (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
: the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
: for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
: the IESG.

I reviewed the MIB documents for structural and language content multiple
times throughout their life cycle.  Additionally, I also requested targeted
review of the contents and structure with interested reviewers at the Berlin
IETF.

: (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
: breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No concerns.

: (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
: broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
: DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
: took place.

While there has been a general distancing of MIBs from write-capable
behaviors within the IETF routing area, this MIB does contain objects that
are read-create.  Unlike other far more complex protocols, basic BFD is
simple enough from a data modeling standpoint that the MIB can potentially
be used to provision BFD using SNMP.  As such, this does warrant additional
review from both a security and operational complexity perspective.

As is typical with routing protocol components, particularly those used for
OAM functionality, BFD is not terribly useful in a standalone environment.
It is thus expected that while the protocol can be provisioned using the
read-create objects within the MIB that many environments would not be able
to fully take advantage of such a provisioning system due inter-protocol,
and thus inter-MIB table dependencies.  This, however, is not a deficiency
of this MIB but rather a well known issue of the MIB ecosystem.

: (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
: has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
: IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
: with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
: is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
: has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
: concerns here.

I have no ongoing concerns.

: (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
: disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
: and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

All 3 authors have positively affirmed that they have done all necessary IPR
disclosures - there are none.

: (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
: If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
: disclosures.

No IPR has been filed and all authors affirm there is no IPR attached to
this document.

: (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
: represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
: being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

For a MIB, this document has received substantial review by the working group.

The WG has consensus that this document should be published.

: (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
: discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
: email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
: separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No appeals have been threatened and discontent has been confined to minor
concerns about future MIBs that may need to be based upon this base MIB.
Those concerns appear to have been addressed as partof WGLC comments.

: (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
: document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
: Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
: thorough.

The ID-nits tool has run clean on the MIB drafts.

: (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
: criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

MIB Doctor review has not yet been done.

: (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
: either normative or informative?

They have.

: (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
: advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
: references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are currently published RFCs.  For the base BFD
MIB, the remaining normative reference is the TC MIB, also being submitted
for publication with the base MIB.

: (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
: If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
: the Last Call procedure.

No.

: (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
: existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
: in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
: listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
: part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
: other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
: explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

: (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
: section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
: document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
: are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
: Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
: identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
: detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
: allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
: reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The documents were reviewed after WGLC to request IANA to adopt these as
IANA maintained MIBs.  An additional short WGLC-bis was requested to double
check the resulting object and TC renames.

: (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
: allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
: useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

In the base BFD MIB, no additional registries are requested.

For the BFD TC MIB, there is a desire to publish the TC MIB as an IANA
maintained MIB. 

: (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
: Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
: language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Per the mib-review-tools, the drafts pass smilint.  I do not have access to
smicng.


2014-04-30
07 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-07.txt
2014-04-30
06 Christer Holmberg Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg.
2014-04-29
06 Nobo Akiya IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2014-04-29
06 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-06.txt
2014-04-28
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2014-04-28
05 Amanda Baber
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-05.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-05.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the IANA Matrix at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/

under IANA Maintained MIBs, a new MIB will be created with a name of:

IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB

and whose description is provided in section 3 of the current document.

IANA Question: what should the registration procedure (see RFC 5226) for this new registry? The authors may want to examine the registration procedures for other IANA Maintained MIBs for examples of relevant registration procedures.

Second, in the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIB subregistry of the Network Management Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

a new MIB will be registered as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: bfdTCStdMib
Description: Textual Conventions for Bidriectional Forwarding Detection
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones that need to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.
2014-04-28
05 Adrian Farrel Pending Routing Directorate review
2014-04-28
05 Adrian Farrel IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2014-04-28
05 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-05-15
2014-04-28
05 Adrian Farrel Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2014-04-28
05 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2014-04-28
05 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2014-04-18
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bernard Aboba
2014-04-18
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bernard Aboba
2014-04-17
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari
2014-04-17
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari
2014-04-16
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2014-04-16
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2014-04-14
05 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2014-04-14
05 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection WG (bfd) to consider the following document:
- 'Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional Forwarding
  Detection (BFD) Management'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-04-28. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  This draft defines two Management Information Base (MIB) modules that
  contain Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Bidirectional
  Forwarding Detection (BFD) management information.  The intent is
  that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in BFD
  related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own
  representations.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
2014-04-14
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2014-04-14
05 Adrian Farrel Last call was requested
2014-04-14
05 Adrian Farrel Ballot approval text was generated
2014-04-14
05 Adrian Farrel IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-04-14
05 Adrian Farrel Last call announcement was changed
2014-04-14
05 Adrian Farrel Last call announcement was generated
2014-04-14
05 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2014-04-14
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-04-14
05 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-05.txt
2013-12-29
04 Adrian Farrel
AD review
=======

Hi authors of draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib,

I am doing my AD review of this document having received the publication
request. The purpose of …
AD review
=======

Hi authors of draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib,

I am doing my AD review of this document having received the publication
request. The purpose of my review is to clear up any issues that might
otherwise show up during IETF last call or IESG review.

During my review I have found a number of minor issues with the MIB
module. I don't think any substantially change the definitions, but I do
think that some editorial work is needed. I believe there will be knock-
on editorial changes to draft-ietf-bfd-mib, but nothing of substance
that will impact that document.

I will put this document into "Revised I-D State", but I would be happy
to discuss any of these points if you think that changes are not needed.

Thanks for the work.

Adrian

===

Tom may want to update his coordinates.

---

I think the Abstract should note that the TCs defined here are maintained
by IANA as this is an important feature.

BUT...

I don't see why all of these TCs are in an IANA module. It seems that a
number of them would not be updated by IANA upon the allocation of new
protocol code points. I believe the following should be moved to their
own module and out of the IANA module...

IANAbfdSessIndexTC                                                           
IANAbfdIntervalTC
IANAbfdMultiplierTC
IANAbfdCtrlDestPortNumberTC (unless you propose to define explicit
                            enumerations)
IANAbfdCtrlSourcePortNumberTC

I am suspicious of some of the other TCs as well. Really, an IANA
module should be used for TCs that mirror registries. Do the other
TCs actually mirror registries? If so you should say which. If not,
then you should probably move them out of the IANA module as well.

---

Could you swap Sections 1 and 2 so that the document begins with the
Introduction.

---

A number of TCs could usefully have Reference clauses so that the
meaning of the TC is more clearly understood.
2013-12-29
04 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2013-12-28
04 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2013-12-28
04 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was generated
2013-12-28
04 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2013-11-30
04 Jeffrey Haas IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-11-30
04 Jeffrey Haas IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2013-11-30
04 Jeffrey Haas
: Document Writeup
:
: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
: Shepherd Write-Up.
:
: Changes …
: Document Writeup
:
: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
: Shepherd Write-Up.
:
: Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
:
: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
: Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
: is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
: title page header?

Proposed Standard.  The draft meets the criteria in RFC 2026, Sec. 4.1.1.
The type is properly indicated in the title page header.

: (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
: Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
: examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
: documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
:

Technical Summary

  This memo defines an portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or
  monitor Bi-Directional Forwarding Detection for [RFC5880], [RFC5881]
  and [RFC5883], BFD versions 0 and/or 1, on devices supporting this
  feature.

Working Group Summary

  This document received commentary from multiple individuals that have had
  prior SNMP MIB authoring and implementation experience.  The document was
  also reviewed in the context of additional BFD work besides providing
  base MIB functionality for the above RFCs.  This includes BFD
  multi-point, BFD over LAG.  It also has been reviewed as being the basis
  MIB for the BFD MPLS MIB.

Document Quality

  As is typical with MIB documents, several vendors implement the contents
  of the BFD MIB in various enterprise MIBs with greater or lesser
  attention paid to the exact structure of this document.  MIBs are seldom
  fully finished at vendors until the publication of the MIB as an RFC
  wherein all the code points are finalized with IANA and other
  authorities.

  In particular, the Textual-Convention draft covers various TCs that do
  not share consistent implementations across the vendors.  By publishing
  an RFC, these code points will become normalized across the vendors.

  Being a MIB document, review by the MIB doctors is always appreciated.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Jeffrey Haas
  Responsible AD: Adrian Farrel

: (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
: the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
: for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
: the IESG.

I reviewed the MIB documents for structural and language content multiple
times throughout their life cycle.  Additionally, I also requested targeted
review of the contents and structure with interested reviewers at the Berlin
IETF.

: (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
: breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No concerns.

: (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
: broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
: DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
: took place.

While there has been a general distancing of MIBs from write-capable
behaviors within the IETF routing area, this MIB does contain objects that
are read-create.  Unlike other far more complex protocols, basic BFD is
simple enough from a data modeling standpoint that the MIB can potentially
be used to provision BFD using SNMP.  As such, this does warrant additional
review from both a security and operational complexity perspective.

As is typical with routing protocol components, particularly those used for
OAM functionality, BFD is not terribly useful in a standalone environment.
It is thus expected that while the protocol can be provisioned using the
read-create objects within the MIB that many environments would not be able
to fully take advantage of such a provisioning system due inter-protocol,
and thus inter-MIB table dependencies.  This, however, is not a deficiency
of this MIB but rather a well known issue of the MIB ecosystem.

: (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
: has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
: IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
: with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
: is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
: has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
: concerns here.

I have no ongoing concerns.

: (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
: disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
: and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

All 3 authors have positively affirmed that they have done all necessary IPR
disclosures - there are none.

: (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
: If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
: disclosures.

No IPR has been filed and all authors affirm there is no IPR attached to
this document.

: (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
: represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
: being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

For a MIB, this document has received substantial review by the working group.

The WG has consensus that this document should be published.

: (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
: discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
: email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
: separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No appeals have been threatened and discontent has been confined to minor
concerns about future MIBs that may need to be based upon this base MIB.
Those concerns appear to have been addressed as partof WGLC comments.

: (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
: document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
: Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
: thorough.

The ID-nits tool has run clean on the MIB drafts.

: (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
: criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

MIB Doctor review has not yet been done.

: (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
: either normative or informative?

They have.

: (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
: advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
: references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are currently published RFCs.  For the base BFD
MIB, the remaining normative reference is the TC MIB, also being submitted
for publication with the base MIB.

: (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
: If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
: the Last Call procedure.

No.

: (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
: existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
: in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
: listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
: part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
: other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
: explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

: (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
: section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
: document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
: are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
: Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
: identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
: detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
: allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
: reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The documents were reviewed after WGLC to request IANA to adopt these as
IANA maintained MIBs.  An additional short WGLC-bis was requested to double
check the resulting object and TC renames.

: (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
: allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
: useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

In the base BFD MIB, no additional registries are requested.

For the BFD TC MIB, there is a desire to publish the TC MIB as an IANA
maintained MIB. 

: (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
: Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
: language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Per the mib-review-tools, the drafts pass smilint.  I do not have access to
smicng.


2013-11-30
04 Jeffrey Haas State Change Notice email list changed to bfd-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib@tools.ietf.org
2013-11-30
04 Jeffrey Haas Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel
2013-11-30
04 Jeffrey Haas Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-11-30
04 Jeffrey Haas IESG state set to Publication Requested
2013-11-30
04 Jeffrey Haas IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2013-11-30
04 Jeffrey Haas Changed document writeup
2013-11-21
04 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-04.txt
2013-11-11
03 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-03.txt
2013-10-24
02 Jeffrey Haas Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2013-10-24
02 Jeffrey Haas Document shepherd changed to Jeffrey Haas
2013-10-24
02 Jeffrey Haas IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2013-06-19
02 Nobo Akiya New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-02.txt
2012-06-14
01 Thomas Nadeau New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-01.txt
2011-03-11
00 (System) Document has expired
2010-09-07
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-00.txt