Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] MPLS-TP MIB management overview

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:52:40 +0100

Hi,

The I-D
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-06.txt
is on the agenda of the IESG telechat on 2/16. It would be good if (at
least) one of the MIB doctors reviews and sends comments to the authors
before the telechat. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:16:24 +0100

> least) one of the MIB doctors reviews and sends comments to the authors

I think I won't have time to read this carefully (nor do I understand
all the acronyms well) but from just skimming the document, there
either is confusion about the usage of the transmission branch and the
mib-2 branch or our policies have changed without me noticing it.
Traditionally, the transmission branch was used for interface
extensions, e.g. stuff that has its own ifType and provides ifType
specific augmentations. They seem to be proposing to put stuff there
that at least sounds very different to me. But then all this is likely
not codified anyway and IANA is ultimately responsible and without
clear regulations, everything is possible.

/js

PS: I am actually not sure why a future work section (section 6) needs
    to detail where stuff yet to be defined will be registered.

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:52:14 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:16 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MPLS-TP MIB management overview
> 

[[DR]] The location of the mpls MIB modules under the transmission
branch started with RFC 3811-3815. This I-D is just documenting an
allocation which exists for more than a decade. I do not remember what
determined that decision, maybe Bert remembers. 

Dan

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:14:56 +0100

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:mib-doctors-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:52 PM
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Cc: [email-masked]

[[DR]] Actually I saw now what you meant. I agree that there is no need
to detail at this point where the OIDs for future work need to be
defined. For the mpls-tp stuff (section 6.1.1) it can be argued that
mpls-tp being a variant of mpls the OIDs may be grouped together for
consistency under mplsStdMIB. This is not the case with the other future
MIB modules.

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:14:36 +0100

I do not remember exactly, I would have to go dive into some
mail archoves (If I still have them).

BUT i believe, that in the range RFC 3811-3815
there were a number of MIB modules that seemed
approprioate to be rooted under transmission.

ALTHOUGH...
3811 is a set of TCs, so that would normally not
fit under transmission. But iirc the idea was that if the ifType
was/is 166, then we e=would extend MIB objects underneath
transmission. As per RFC3811 section 6:

6.  IANA Considerations

    IANA has made a MIB OID assignment under the transmission branch,
    that is, assigned the mplsStdMIB under { transmission 166 }.  This
    sub-id is requested because 166 is the ifType for mpls(166) and is
    available under transmission.

    In the future, MPLS related standards track MIB modules should be
    rooted under the mplsStdMIB subtree.  The IANA is requested to manage
    that namespace.  New assignments can only be made via a Standards
    Action as specified in [RFC2434].

    The IANA has also assigned { mplsStdMIB 1 } to the MPLS-TC-STD-MIB
    specified in this document.

Bert

On 2/12/12 6:52 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103<http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
>

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:15:38 +0100

> consistency under mplsStdMIB. This is not the case with the other future

I can agree with that too.

Bert