Subject: Attention implementors of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mib-10

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:52:48 -0400

As part of working group last call, we are going to need an implementation
report.  If you could contact me so we can at least get parties
lined up for this, it would be handy.

As part of working group last call, the OPS folks pointed out a 
potentially worrisome issue:

Two previously documented traps, bgpEstablished and bgpBackwardTransition
were changed from the RFC 1657 definition to include in its OBJECTS
clause the bgpPeerRemoteAddr object.  This is apparently not kosher
since the INDEX of the two documented objects includes the information
included in that particular object.  

Removing the bgpPeerRemoteAddr object appears to be the correct
answer, however it potentially will affect deployed implementations
that implement the BGP traps.

I am working with the OPS folks to determine what our proper course
of action should be.  

If you have implemented these traps, please contact me so I can help
direct your concerns.  Given the operational consequences of these
objects, I would like to keep this as smooth as possible.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies