Subject: [AVT] Follow up to AVT meeting - RTCP XR MIB vs RTP MIB

From: "Alan Clark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:06:54 -0500

I understand that the AVT meeting requested that the RTCP XR MIB draft be
updated to include a note concerning relationship to the RTP MIB.  I propose
to add a note to say that the two MIBs have no dependencies and that hence
the RTCP XR MIB can be implemented without the RTP MIB.   Are there any
comments or objections to this approach?

Regards

Alan Clark

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Mark Baugher <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:48:38 -0800

> comments or objections to this approach?

I have a question:  Why reproduce the MIB for a small subset of the 
protocol?  I have not seen this done before.

Mark

---

From: "Alan Clark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:10:07 -0500

Mark

There is no suggestion of reproducing the RTP MIB for a small subset of the
protocol - there is actually a relatively small overlap between the two.
The focus of the RTCP XR MIB is essentially for VoIP performance management.

Can you provide some insight into how widely implemented the RTP MIB is?

Regards

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Mark Baugher
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 9:49 AM
To: Alan Clark
Cc: Magnus Westerlund; Colin Perkins; Avt@Ietf. Org; Amy Pendleton
Subject: Re: [AVT] Follow up to AVT meeting - RTCP XR MIB vs RTP MIB

Mark

---

From: Mark Baugher <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:08:01 -0800

Alan,

> The focus of the RTCP XR MIB is essentially for VoIP performance 

I expect that anyone who reads 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-01.txt, 
section 2, and http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2959.html, section 2, will 
conclude that the components of the two MIBs are identical.  If the 
components are identical then I don't understand your claim that there 
is relatively small overlap.
> Can you provide some insight into how widely implemented the RTP MIB 

I feel that you may be approaching the design in the wrong way when you 
ask such a question.  Would you please explain why this is a relevant 
question?  I would not expect there to be a separate MIB for each 
application.  What you're doing here seems to be even more extreme 
because it is for VoIP _performance_ management.  What about VoIP 
configuration management or other functions performed by a MIB?  The 
upside to doing it your way might be that the MIB designers don't need 
to think about other application uses beyond their specific concern.  
The downside is that if one MIB is installed to do one thing for one 
application, there will be redundancy if another RTP MIB is needed for 
more general uses.

Mark