Subject: Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-03.txt

From: "Bruno Rijsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:05:39 -0500

Two observations on using the RFC number as the OID:

(a) What happens if an RFC is obsoleted by a newer RFC?

(b) It seems that this model is not followed consistently
    (e.g. the OIDs for capability negotiation are not based
    on the RFC number)

>From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
>To: Bruno Rijsman <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-03.txt
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:34:14 -0500
>
>Bruno,
>
>The general idea was that the extension OID would be based on the RFC
>number.
>
>This is, of course, open to reconsideration.  However, this also keeps
>us from sticking things in the bgp mib extensions that aren't at least
>supported by some RFC.
>
>On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:26:19PM -0500, Bruno Rijsman wrote:
> > (2) A value still needs to be allocated for XXX in
> >
> >     bgpM2PathAttrExtCommTable OBJECT-TYPE
> >         [...]
> >         DESCRIPTION
> >         [...]
> >             XXX JMH - can not assign the OID until an RFC is published."
> >         ::= { bgpM2PathAttrNonCapExts XXX }
> >
> >     PS - In this case it is not quite clear to me why that has to wait
> >     until the RFC is published.
>
>--
>Jeff Haas
>NextHop Technologies

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail