Subject: RE: [Sip] Status of SIP MIB

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:06:16 -0600

Here's one area where you & the wg participants may want to help.

One of the comments we got was: 
  is the information model we have in the sip mib 07 sufficient to
configure sip *protocol* parameters on basic sip entities (UA, proxy,
registrar, etc.)?

Both kevin and i implemented earlier versions of this mib on some early
sip rfc2543 boxes but speaking for myself, it's been a while I looked
closely at sip devices & their configuration. Back then, I was
considered a fool to push for sip over tcp... so things have changed.

It would be great if some of you could screen sip implementations with
the above question in mind and drop us a minimal set of params you need
to configure *basic* sip entities in a plain text email (no mib syntax
please, just plain text param names with a description and may be a sip
rfc section number as a ref but we can take care of the later). And we
don't care whether those configuration params are provided on a
java-based GUI on a sip phone or via CLI telnet/ssh to a sip proxy or
via some kind of xml/netconf: what matters is the what (what protocol
parameters get configured), not the how (not the actual configuration
protocol & associated data model).

This would be of good help.
Jean-francois.
 [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Lingle [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:31 PM
> To: Bob Natale
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Status of SIP MIB
> 
> 
> bob,
> 
> you are welcome to review -07 and comment just as anyone
> else is.   we have a set of "official" reviewers (4-5 iirc)
> from which we've fielded 90+ individual comments.  we've 
> addressed (as in read, corresponded about, given some thought 
> to, and have a response/solution) a majority of those 
> comments. the solution - in terms of changes to the mib is 
> not done in many cases (minor changes are typically done, but 
> others are larger changes across the mib). as with most 
> things, it's just a matter of finding the time to work these 
> changes and work through the remaining comments not yet addressed.
> 
> on one hand i'd love more review of the draft.
> on the other hand more comments to address will delay
> things more (potentially).
> 
> considering that i want -08 to be the wglc approved
> revision we take to iesg, i'd say you should review
> -07.
> 
> do you ever get involved as a mib
> doctor type or expert reviewer of mib drafts that
> have been submitted to iesg?
> 
> kevin
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Natale wrote:
> > Hi Kevin,
> > 
> > Thanks...I understand...didn't mean to put more pressure on 
> you or the 
> > other authors personally...I'd like to help (I was until 
> recently in a 
> > role that kept me from being involved in these 
> efforts)...would it be 
> > helpful for me to review the -07 version at this point or should I 
> > wait for the -08 version?  (Or "neither"! :-)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > BobN
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Kevin Lingle [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >>Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 1:55 PM
> >>To: Bob Natale
> >>Cc: [email-masked]
> >>Subject: Re: [Sip] Status of SIP MIB
> >>
> >>bob,
> >>
> >>agreed.   and i think about the need to move the
> >>draft forward almost all the time.  the issue, for
> >>me personally, has been product development priorities. working on 
> >>this mib is by no means my main job ;) i think i speak for my 
> >>co-author as well.
> >>
> >>i alluded to this being the _2nd wglc_ for this draft.
> >>that was a result of us pausing, after the 1st wglc
> >>was concluded, and taking the extra step to migrate the
> >>mibs to be aligned with the 2nd rfc for sip (rfc3261).
> >>the release of rfc3261 came about in the same timeframe.
> >>so in that sense we are trying to provide the due diligence to make 
> >>the mibs better.  an rfc would probably exist if we had not 
> taken this 
> >>step.  but it was the right thing to do.
> >>
> >>my comments about no ground swell relate to:
> >>1) the fact that we, over the life of this draft
> >>    [which is waaaayyyy too long], we've not gotten
> >>    any sense of urgency to get the mibs done.
> >>    i expect/hope this will change as sip becomes more and
> >>    more mainstream.   i may have been able to
> >>    justify more of my time for the draft work
> >>    had there been a more vocal response from the
> >>    sip community wrt the need for MIBs to be in
> >>    place sooner than later.
> >>
> >>2) our ability to solicit interest from the sip
> >>    community to review the various drafts has also
> >>    consistently been a problem.  to the point where
> >>    sometimes i felt we were offering candidate mib
> >>    objects in a vaccum.    having 2 last call reviews
> >>    has helped this issue though.    it is also a case
> >>    of most folks being very interested in the protocol
> >>    but not really being "MIB folk" ;)
> >>
> >>
> >>we will eventually get there with the draft (hopefully
> >>sooner than later ;).
> >>
> >>kevin
> >>
> >>Bob Natale wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi Kevin,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>my sense has been all along that there isn't a ground swell of
> >>>
> >>>immediate
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>need for the SIP MIBs as of yet across the sip community.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps.  But good MIBs tend to beget good (SNMP[v3]-based)
> >>
> > management
> > 
> >>>applications, not the other way around.  And the absence of good
> >>
> > MIBs
> > 
> >>>for otherwise good technology (e.g., SIP) virtually 
> guarantees that 
> >>>other management solutions will be deployed, increasingly lowering
> >>
> > the
> > 
> >>>sense of (but not the reality of) need for those good MIBs.
> >>>
> >>>Cheers,
> >>>BobN
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> >>>This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use 
> >>>[email-masked] for questions on current sip Use 
> >>>[email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> > Use [email-masked] for questions on 
> current sip Use 
> > [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [email-masked] for questions on current 
> sip Use [email-masked] for new developments on the 
> application of sip
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip