I would report this as "ready for publication as Proposed Standard"...
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Haas
To: Spencer Dawkins
Cc: Patrick Droz ; General Area Review Team ; Jamal Hadi Salim ;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org ; Ross Callon
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
I released a new version of the draft to change to ZeroBasedCounters and
took the opportunity to rename the counters as you suggested. Now they are
called *Oper* instead of *Other*:
"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org> wrote on 09/03/2008
Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
09/03/2008 05:06 PM
"Patrick Droz", "General Area Review Team", "Jamal Hadi Salim",
ietf, "Ross Callon"
Thanks for the quick response on all the comments - to be explicit,
version 8 addresses all my comments, except for one question (below).
It actually could be OK to retain the OtherMsg name and definition,
if there is a reason to do so (one reason might be "deployed
systems use this name and definition"). What I was saying was that
it violates the Principle of Least Astonishment - you could also
clearly define "3" as "2", but implementers would still think "3"
was "3" when scanning quickly.
This is an IETF Last Call review comment, so other reviewers can
tell you "Spencer is worried about nothing", and Gen-ART comments
are never blocking unless an AD includes them in a DISCUSS.
I'll trust that you guys will do the right thing, which might or
might not be to make a change.
Thanks for hearing me out.
o Number of other ForCES messages sent from the CE
(forcesAssociationOtherMsgSent) and received by the CE
(forcesAssociationOtherMsgReceived) since the association
the UP state. Only messages other than Heartbeat, Association
Setup, Association Setup Response, and Association Teardown are
Spencer (technical): I think I know what you're saying here, but
counting "other" messages (because you exclude some of the
The point is that you didn't get into the table with Association
Setup/Association Setup Response, and you leave the table
Association Teardown, so you don't have to count these messages, isn't
I agree, but I'd rather keep this explicit. As for "OtherMsg" vs
"OperationalMsg": I'd rather keep it as is, given that we define
what are these "other" messages.
Ietf mailing list