Subject: Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-bfd-07-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 14:28:03 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-bfd-07-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bfd/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully, you can now remove:
   1. Develop the MIB modules for BFD and submit them to the IESG for 
   publication as Proposed Standards.

And the famous milestones are absent.

---

From: Jeff Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 16:15:07 -0700

Benoit,

The MPLS MIB is still a remaining work item. 

At this point we have no further management items but I suspect that S-BFD may eventually produce such work. Whether that is a MIB or a yang module is to be determined. 

Jeff

> On May 28, 2014, at 14:28, "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:26:42 +0200

Hi Jeff,

I'm confused.
I thought that this entry was related to the two BFD mib modules on 
tomorrow IESG telechat? So very close to go the RFC editor queue AFAICT
Or maybe, you're thinking of something else with this "MPLS MIB"?

Regards, B.
> .

---

From: Jeff Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 16:32:09 -0700

Benoit,

Draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib not the base MIB or the TC MIB. 

Jeff

> On May 28, 2014, at 16:26, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> I'm confused.
> I thought that this entry was related to the two BFD mib modules on tomorrow IESG telechat? So very close to go the RFC editor queue AFAICT

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:41:51 +0200

Thanks for the clarification Jeff.

Regards, Benoit