Subject: IRR MIB action item

From: Cengiz Alaettinoglu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:45:39 -0700 (PDT)

One of the action items from the last IETF is to decide what to do
with IRR MIB. Please see:
	ftp://ftp.isi.edu/rps/chicago-ietf/irrmib.pdf
and the minutes for details.

We need to determine:
	1) if there is enough interest on having an MIB, and snmp
	   access to IRR
	2) if there is, we need to determine if RPS WG should do it, or 
           leave it to ADs/authors for some other WG.
	3) if we decide to do it in this WG, our charter needs to be
	   updated. 

Though I find the SNMP interface as a way of querying IRR interesting
and useful, I am hesitant to extend our charter as we already have a
lot of unfinished work to finish up before we can close this WG.

Please comment.

Cengiz

-- 
Cengiz Alaettinoglu           Information Sciences Institute
http://www.isi.edu/~cengiz    University of Southern California

---

From: Philip Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:59:35 +1000

Cengiz,

Likewise I think using SNMP to query the IRR is an interesting proposal.

However, I do think that this working group has enough on its plate
already. Maybe we should finish the work in hand, and allow the ADs to
consider establishing an IRR Working Group (or similar) which can further
the many IRR centred issues which are being discussed on this list. There
is the MIB proposal, and dare I mention origin authentication....

my $0.02

philip
--

>lot of unfinished work to finish up before we can close this WG.
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Smith                         ph: +61 7 3238 8202 
Consulting Engineering, Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems             
--------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:45:00 -0400

> and the minutes for details.

-rw-------  1 2119     134        825022 Aug 31 18:34 irrmib.pdf

> 	1) if there is enough interest on having an MIB, and snmp

No interest here but if others are interested I will not stand in the
way of doing a MIB.  I didn't see much evidence of interest outside of
the draft author at the meeting.  Supporters please speak up.

> lot of unfinished work to finish up before we can close this WG.

A query interface, MIB or otherwise, would be a lot easier to define
than other work in this WG such as the semantics of a routing policy
system and authorization.  I don't think we'd be adding a lot of work.
I just don't see any demand for it.

The charter needs updating anyway.

Curtis