Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management
RFC 7330

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    bfd mailing list <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>,
    bfd chair <bfd-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-08.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional Forwarding
   Detection (BFD) Management'
  (draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-08.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Alia Atlas.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib/


Technical Summary

   This document 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.

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 <jhaas@pfrc.org>
  Responsible AD: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>