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 |