Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Management Information Base
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib-15

[Ballot comment]
Private IESG joke: Adrian took care of the MIB review, I took care of the Security Considerations, Stephen/Sean, can you please take care of the OPS issues :-)

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but note a
few things that probably need to be fixed.

===

Section 1 says...

In particular, it defines a MIB module

...but there are three separate MIB modules in this document.

---

Section 4.

It would be helpful if you noted what the arrows in Figure A imply.

---

RFC 3411, RFC 2863, and RFC 3813 are all used as normative references in
Section 6.1, so you should move them to Section 9.1.

---

VPLS-GENERIC-MIB has

  vplsGenericDraft01MIB MODULE-IDENTITY

...which looks like a bit of broken cut and paste

and

several REVISION/DESCRIPTION clauses which I believe are only meant to
reflect revisions of the module published in RFCs.

This applies to the other modules as well.

---

The REFERENCE clauses don't appear to be formed correctly. For example:

      REFERENCE
          "[RFC4364]"

I think that you are not supposed to use citations in the MIB modules
(because the module may be sucked out of the RFC and so appear without
the references), and I think the approved form for references:
- gives the RFC number
- names the RFC by title
- gives a section number where possible

Similarly, the DESCRIPTION clauses shouldn't use citations, but can
simply use RFC numbers.

----

Surely VplsBgpRouteDistinguisher and VplsBgpRouteTarget should say how
the protocol things are encoded into the TCs even if only to say that
the encoding matches what is used in BGP.

---

Probably a pathetic comment, but shouldn't you at least note that
vplsConfigFwdFullLowWatermark must be less than
vplsConfigFwdFullHighWatermark.

I think that less-than-or-equal-to doesn't work, does it? And given
that, isn't it the case that vplsConfigFwdFullHighWatermark should have
range 1..100, and vplsConfigFwdFullLowWatermark have range 0..99?

---

At http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security there are
guidelines about what to put in a MIB document's security section. I am
a little surprised that your MIB Doctor let you get away with what you
have here, but I'll leave it to the OPS and SEC ADs to worry about
whether anything needs to be done.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib-14.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has a question about the IANA Considerations section.
Please confirm if we recap the requested IANA action correctly.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is
a single action which IANA must complete.

In the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIBsubregistry
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: vplsGenericMIB
Description: Virtual Private Lan Services (VPLS) MIB
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors request the MIB to be rooted in the transmission subtree.

QUESTION: The text in the IANA Considerations section of the current
version has no information about the requested registration, i.e.
name, value, etc. of the new requested registration:

8. IANA Considerations

-- (Note to RFC-Editor:)
-- We request that you assign contiguous RFC numbers to the
--  IANA is requested to root MIB objects in the MIB module
--  contained in this document under the transmission subtree.
--

The authors should document clearly what the requested registration
is, what the new value is (if applicable), what the intended
registry or sub-registry is.

IANA understands this to be the only action required of IANA 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Virtual Private Lan Services (VPLS) Management Information Base) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document:
- 'Virtual Private Lan Services (VPLS) Management Information Base'
  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 2014-02-14. 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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it describes managed objects for to configure and/or
  monitor Virtual Private LAN services. It needs to be used in
  conjunction with The Pseudowire (PW) Management Information Base.









The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Need to reconcile

"This memo defines an experimental portion of the Management
Information Base for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.  "

With the proposed status of ST

Draft Title:  Virtual Private Lan Services (VPLS) Management Information Base
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib-13


(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

This is the proper type of RFC as this is the MIB for a core L2VPN protocol (VPLS - RFC4761/4762).


(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 experimental portion of the Management
    Information Base for use with network management protocols in the
    Internet community.  In particular, it describes managed objects for
    modeling of Virtual Private LAN services. It needs to be used in
    conjunction with Pseudowire (PW) Management Information Base
    (RFC5601).


    Working Group Summary:

    This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, adopted in August
    2007, and which passed WG last call in July 2010.  The doc was well
    reviewed in the WG up to WG last call, and has subsequently been
    further reviewed by the WG chairs and by a MIB doctor.  We believe it
    is now stable and complete.

    Document Quality:

    In the view of the chairs the document is now of sufficient quality
    to be published as an RFC.  There are now multiple implementations
    by multiple vendors.

    Personnel:

    Document Shepherd: Giles Heron (giheron@cisco.com)
    Area Director: Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)


(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.

The Document Shepherd did a full, and iterative, review of the text of version 04 of the draft, leading to the authors issuing versions 05 - 08 with various fixes.  The document shepherd has also scanned through the mail archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to review debates on the draft.  Subsequently the Document Shepherd requested review of the draft by a MIB doctor - this review resulted in iterations 09 to 13.  The document shepherd's view is that this is now ready for publication.


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

No.  The document shepherd has reviewed the document multiple times through various iterations.


(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.

Yes.  MIB doctor review was performed - and incorporated into this revision of the draft.


(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.

No specific 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?

Yes.


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

No.


(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?

Response to the WG adoption call was a bit weak (only 3 supporting and none opposing adoption) but there has been discussion on-list and at IETF meetings by implementors of the draft.  Response to last call was non-existent - perhaps reflecting the general lack of current interest in MIBs.


(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.


(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.

No errors found.

One comment relating to the disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work.  Since earlier versions of the draft listed a long list of authors it is preferable to leave this disclaimer in.


(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 performed - and incorporated in this revision of the draft.


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

Yes.


(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?

No.


(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 IANA considerations section simply consists of a note to the RFC editor requesting that IANA root the MIB modules under the transmission subtree.


(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.

No new registries.


(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.

MIB doctor review performed - and incorporated into this revision of the draft.