Subject: [Pce] Fwd: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08: (with DISCUSS)

From: Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:49:30 +0200

Hi all.

I believe Benoit's following comment is interesting to the whole WG, 
beyond the reviewed I-D itself.

Julien

-------- Message original --------
De :     Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>

[...]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Joel. Section 3.3 GMPLS PCE Management is really too weak
for a requirement document.
It sounds like: "hey, let's put a MIB to satisfy the OPS ADs."
Are you really going to manage GMPLS PCE deployment with a read-only MIB
module.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-04 and RFC 4802 are
both read-only.
This section is not about management, it's just monitoring.
The WG should review https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706, and tell us how
they plan on "managing" GMPLS PCE?
Please review https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706#appendix-A, and answer
the different questions.

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:54:23 +0000

I think the WG decided, as did the MPLS WG, to not mandate
read-write/create objects in MIBs any longer, in favor of Yang/NetConf.
However, if that is truly the case, then that begs the question, "where is
the Yang/Netconf module for this?"

	--Tom

On 6/27/13 8:49 AM, "Julien Meuric" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>Pce mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>