Subject: Protocol Action: 'BFD Management Information Base' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bfd-mib-22.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:39:07 -0700

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'BFD Management Information Base'
  (draft-ietf-bfd-mib-22.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-mib/

Technical Summary

   This documen 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 modeling
   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol.

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.

   The working group, authors, and WG chairs discussed the issue of write-
   access in its own right and in the context of the IESG statement on this 
   topic. The conclusion was that the level of write-access in this document 
   is correct, consistent with implementations of both agents and management
   stations, and appropriate. If the majority of work on this document had not
   pre-dated the IESG statement, things might have been somewhat different,
   but it was felt that the current state of this document is correct.

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 <[email-masked]>
  Responsible AD: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>