Hi Joel It was for this specific area it was requested. We did explore an automated/mechanical way of doing this but in the end, it was easier to do by hand. The organization of this MIB maps closely to the YANG model. In other cases, I have dealt with existing MIBs and new YANG this is not the case.
Regards Don -----Original Message----- From: Joel Halpern <jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 10:30 AM To: Don Fedyk <dfe...@labn.net>; gen-...@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs....@ietf.org; ipsec@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04 That suffices for the document and my review. Whether it suffices for the community and IESG is up to them. (I wonder about the precedent of defining MIBs for monitoring every new thing we do. But that is up to others, not something you can fix in this document.) Yours, Joel On 9/29/2022 10:25 AM, Don Fedyk wrote: > Hi Joel > > The reason this was requested by the community is that there is SNMP > management equipment deployed that they would like to be able use for > monitoring IP-TFS. > > I suggest I add this text to clearify. > > OLD: > The objects defined here are the same as [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs] with > the exception that only operational data is supported. This module uses the > YANG model as a reference point for managed objects. Note an IETF MIB model > for IPsec was never standardized however the structures here could be adapted > to existing MIB implementations. > > NEW: > The objects defined here are the same as [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs] with > the exception that only operational data is supported. By making operational > data accessible via SNMP existing network management systems can monitor > IP-TFS. This module uses the YANG model as a reference point for managed > objects. Note an IETF MIB model for IPsec was never standardized however the > structures here could be adapted to existing MIB implementations. > > Doses that suffice? > > Thanks > Don > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 6:50 PM > To: gen-...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs....@ietf.org; ipsec@ietf.org; > last-c...@ietf.org > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04 > > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the > IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04 > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review Date: 2022-09-21 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-04 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Assuming a reasonable answer to one question, this document is ready > for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. > > Major issues: > The one question I have is "why?" I could not find anywhere in the > document any explanation of why we are defining an SNMP MIB for > monitoring > ipsecme, nor the equivalent why an operator would choose to use this MIB > instead of the YANG based model that it is based upon. > > Minor issues: N/A > > Nits/editorial comments: N/A > > > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
