Subject: abandoning ike-monitor-mib, isakmp-di-mon-mib, and monitor-mib?

From: John Shriver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:58:49 -0400

OK, let's try and sort out the MIB issues one decision at a time.  The 
first thing is to decide if we want to abandon the original set of MIBs:

   draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-monitor-mib-04.txt,
   draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-di-mon-mib-05.txt, and
   draft-ietf-ipsec-monitor-mib-06.txt

They have never attracted much interest.  Neither of the original 
authors work in the IPsec marketplace anymore, so they can't contribute 
any implementations to get them through the standards process.  I think 
that there is only one implementation of them, ever.

Moreover, both the ISAKMP and IKE MIB modules would require MAJOR 
rewriting to be compatible with IKE Version 2.  Like merging them, since 
the ISAKMP/IKE layering is extinct in v2.

So, given this set of considerable problems, is there anyone who wants 
these MIBs to track the IPsec standards going forwards, and can find 
resources to update them and implement them?

If nobody wants to do this, will we take the lack of any dissent on 
their death as "consensus" per the "IETF Process"?

I *NEED* to know this, because there are a number of TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS 
in the doi-tc-mib that were only used by these three MIBs, and are not 
used by the IPsec flow MIB, or by the Policy MIB.  Since it looks like 
the doi-tc-mib will NOT be maintained by the IANA (no enumerations), the 
TC's have to be used in some MIB to progress through the standards 
process, so we can't stock up on "spare" TCs for possible future needs.

So, please consider this a "last call", only for termination instead of 
promotion along the standards track.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:44:16 -0700 (PDT)

About the TCs alone: as you and Mike Heard have pointed out,
ipsec-flowmon-mib-tc duplicates much of doi-tc-mib. Since the
latter is also used by the Policy MIB, I feel that it would be
better for the Flow MIB to be layered on the same set of textual
conventions.

I hope that you would include the couple of TCs which the Flow
MIB needs which are missing in your draft.

Thanks,

Rk
x77309

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:02:34 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, John Shriver wrote:
> OK, let's try and sort out the MIB issues one decision at a
> time.  The first thing is to decide if we want to abandon the
> original set of MIBs:
> 

[ ... list of problems snipped ... ]

> So, given this set of considerable problems, is there anyone who
> wants these MIBs to track the IPsec standards going forwards,
> and can find resources to update them and implement them?
> 
> If nobody wants to do this, will we take the lack of any dissent
> on their death as "consensus" per the "IETF Process"?
> 
> I *NEED* to know this, because there are a number of
> TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS in the doi-tc-mib that were only used by
> these three MIBs, and are not used by the IPsec flow MIB, or by
> the Policy MIB.  Since it looks like the doi-tc-mib will NOT be
> maintained by the IANA (no enumerations), the TC's have to be
> used in some MIB to progress through the standards process, so
> we can't stock up on "spare" TCs for possible future needs.

It's been a week, and not even one word has been uttered on the WG
mailing list.  I'm reminded of the closing words in Barbara Fraser's
message of 6 June asking us to get this stuff done:

% I feel like we're living in Ground Day with these MIB docs. We
% keep living the same thing over and over. Let's please get to
% the end :-)

I think that the silence very eloquently states that there is no
further interest in these MIB modules.  In the interest of allowing
John to get on with the edits to the doi-tc MIB, will the chairs
please make a ruling that these MIB modules are abandoned owing to
lack of WG interest?

Thanks,

Mike Heard