Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-Based Management Overview
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-08

[Ballot comment]
1) "The below modules only support the SNMP based MIB management"
The MIB modules can be used with any protocol that can read a MIB.
RFC1052 describes the separation of MIB data models from protocols that carry MIB data.
Hence, it is considered incorrect to say "SNMP based MIB".
Yes, SNMP is the most widely-used protocol to access a MIB, but it is not the only one; CLIs often access MIB information, and there is ongoing work to develop
a) a MIB-to-YANG translation for netconf;
b) a MIB-to-syslog SDE translation for syslog;
c) a MIB-to-IE translation for ipfix;
d) a MIB-to-XMLSchema translation for translating MIB data to XML format.

I suggest the correct wording would be "The below MIB modules support MPLS resiliency."

2) "can be achieved" might be better as "might be achieved", since the devil is in the details for MIB design, and until it is done saying it can be don eight be incorrect.

3) in 7, you might want to remove ", if SNMP is used in the management interface", for the same reasons mentioned in #1.

[Ballot discuss]
I like this document, but before I cast a 'Yes' vote I would like to clarify and possibly fix one issue (more may come as the document was forwarded to the MIB Doctors list).

I do not think we need to detail at this point where the OIDs for future work need to be defined. For the mpls-tp stuff (section 6.1.1) it can be argued that mpls-tp being a variant of mpls the OIDs may be grouped together for consistency under mplsStdMIB. This is not the case with the other future MIB modules. Allocation under the transmission branch is problematic, as this typically is associated with an ifType and the MIB module describes ifType specific augmentations. There is no ifType (as I understand) with PWE3, BFD or OAM for MPLS-TP, so the location of these MIB modules should rather be under mib-2.

At least let us be mute about these, no need to describe under what branch will be located future MIB modules at this point.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-based Management Overview) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-based
  Management Overview'
  as an Informational
RFC

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 2011-12-12. 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


  A range of Management Information Base (MIB) modules has been
  developed to help model and manage the various aspects of
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks.  These MIB modules are
  defined in separate documents that focus on the specific areas of
  responsibility of the modules that they describe.

  The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is a profile of MPLS
  functionality specific to the construction of packet-switched
  transport networks.

  This document describes the MIB-based architecture for MPLS-TP,
  and indicates the interrelationships between different existing MIB
  modules that can be leveraged for MPLS-TP network management and
  identifies areas where additional MIB modules are required.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview/


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

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
>      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
>      document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
>      version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
He has reviewed the document and believes it is ready to be
forwarded to the IESG for publication.

> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
>      and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
>      any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
>      have been performed?

The document has been through the review process for mpls-tp
documents, meaning that in addition to the reviewed in the mpls
working group, it has also been reviewed the ITU-T SG15.
We have asked one person with background in the MIB Doctors to review
the document, the comments that resulted from this review was folded
into the working group last call comments.
All comments in the working group last has been addressed by the
authors and a one week call held to verify that the comments been
correctly understood and addressed. Q14/15 has also sent a liaison
veryfying that all comments has been correctly addressed.


The shepherd is convinced that this is sufficient review for this
document.


> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
>      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
>      e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
>      AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
>      issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
>      been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
>      disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
>      this issue.

No such concerns. There is no IPR claims for this document.


> (1.e) 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?

There is a very good consensus around this draft.


> (1.f) 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
>      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats or extreme discontent.

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
>      and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
>      not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
>      met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
>      Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The nit tool does not catch any nits!


> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
>      informative? 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
>      strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
>      that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
>      so, list these downward references to support the Area
>      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are correctly split.

All documents that are normatively referenced are published RFCs.
All informative references are published RFCs, with two exceptions,
bioth these documents are int the RFC Editors queue.


> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
>      of the document? If the document specifies protocol
>      extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
>      registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
>      the document creates a new registry, does it define the
>      proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
>      procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
>      reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
>      document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
>      conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
>      can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

This document makes no specific request for IANA action.


> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
>      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
>      code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
>      an automated checker?

No such formal language.

> (1.k) 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


  A range of Management Information Base (MIB) modules has been
  developed to help model and manage the various aspects of
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks.  These MIB modules are
  defined in separate documents that focus on the specific areas of
  responsibility of the modules that they describe.

  The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is a profile of MPLS
  functionality specific to the construction of packet-switched
  transport networks.

  This document describes the MIB-based architecture for MPLS-TP,
  and indicates the interrelationships between different existing MIB
  modules that can be leveraged for MPLS-TP network management and
  identifies areas where additional MIB modules are required.




Working Group Summary

  This document is a MPLS working group document, and part of the joint
  IETF - ITU.T MPLS-TP project. It has been reviewed in both organizations
  and there is a solid support for the document.

Document Quality

The document is well reviewed in the MPLS working group,the ITU-T and
the MPLS-TP project.