Subject: WGLC for BFD base MIB and TC - ends November 8

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:06:12 -0400

This email is to initiate working group last call on the BFD MIB and
Textual-Convention documents:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-mib-14
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-02

The last call will complete on November 8, the end of IETF week.  Time will
be available during the Vancouver IETF BFD session to discuss last call
comments.

I will be serving as document shepherd (RFC 4858) for this WGLC. 

Due to the small nature of the BFD working group and the fact that both
working group chairs have contributed to the documents, we have gotten
Carlos Pignataro ([email-masked]) to volunteer to serve as an
independent party to gauge working group consensus.

In order to facilitate the transparency of this WGLC, please remember to
send all comments to the working group mailing list.

As is often the case with MIB documents, implementations typically do not
exist for the final form of the document.  Typically enterprise MIBs are
implemented at some point in the document life cycle and then later the
implementor will revise to match the published RFC, including OID
code-points assigned by IANA.  Reviewers examining the MIB against deployed
implementations are requested to bear in mind implementability of the final
document vs. existence proof of the running code.

Finally, note that no IPR polling has been done for these documents.  MIBs,
being IETF data models of things that themselves may have IPR, tend not to
have IPR against them.  However, if someone is aware of IPR against these
documents, please state it for the WG.

-- Jeff (for the chairs)

---

From: "Srihari Raghavan (srihari)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 01:08:12 +0000

Yes/Support.

Thanks
Srihari

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:00:59 -0400

Please send detailed comments on any requested changes rather than "support/do not support" during the WG last call.

	--Tom

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:51:40 -0400

> Please send detailed comments on any requested changes rather than "support/do not support" during the WG last call.

Thanks, Tom. :-)

I agree.  If all of you who have responded "support" really mean "I have
thoroughly read and support the last call of the current draft", that's a
lot of good review.

I'm a bit skeptical.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:07:26 +0000

This is how I replied. No comments on the doc and read it carefully +
implemented :-)

On 25/10/13 15:51, "Jeffrey Haas" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Please send detailed comments on any requested changes rather than
>>"support/do not support" during the WG last call.
>
>Thanks, Tom. :-)
>

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:21:16 -0400

Perfect!

	Cheers,

	--Tom

---

From: "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 06:25:43 +0000

Hello Jeff,
>I agree.  If all of you who have responded "support" really mean "I have thoroughly read and support the last call of the current draft", that's a lot >of good review.
I submit that I have reviewed the document and do not have specific comments. I am part of a team that handles implementation of this draft.
Thanks
Prasad

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 7:22 PM
To: Thomas Nadeau
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD base MIB and TC - ends November 8

Thanks, Tom. :-)

I agree.  If all of you who have responded "support" really mean "I have thoroughly read and support the last call of the current draft", that's a lot of good review.

I'm a bit skeptical.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:16:28 +0000

[as an individual]

I have read both these documents and support their progress. They are well written, and fill an important gap.

There are, however, a set of Nits found by idnits. These are straightforward but should be fixed before sending the doc upstream.
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bfd-mib-14.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-02.txt

Thanks,

-- Carlos.