Subject: Re: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mib-10.txt to PS

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:20:47 -0000

I think that this draft needs some revision before advancement.

The SNMP (and other) red tape has moved on.  There is a new boiler
plate for section 5, the SNMP 257x RFC have been superseded by 34xx,
the references need splitting into normative and not, IpAddress is
frowned upon, the e-mail is no longer merit.net; etc etc.  And there
are a raft of SMI issues where this SMI would not be allowed if this
were a new MIB module but may be here since this is really a converted
SMIv1 module (issues which keep changing and which I always have to
research most carefully).

More debatably, I would prefer the base bgp document to have a
relatively clean last call before delving too deep into this.  We did
remove MIB information from the base document which means this
probably now needs more adding to it eg on start event (now more than
one), error codes and such like.
Tom Petch
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 March 2003 16:38
Subject: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mib-10.txt to PS

>Folks,
>
>This is to start the WG Last Call on advancing
draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mib-10.txt
>to a Proposed Standard. The Last Call ends  March 24.
>
>Yakov.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:40:38 -0500

Tom,

> I think that this draft needs some revision before advancement.

Thanks for the many suggestions.  Others have made similar
suggestions, specifically Bert to fix all of the boilerplate,
off-list.

> IpAddress is frowned upon,

I don't believe we can utilize InetAddress.
Do you have a better suggestion?

> the e-mail is no longer merit.net; etc etc.  And there

The whole point is to document what *is* deployed without making serious
changes to the MIB - we can't do that.  The v2MIB is intended to let
us get the protocol as deployed properly documnted.

> relatively clean last call before delving too deep into this.

If there are particular points that are reflected in the current v1MIB
that you believe are going to be contentious, please point them out.
I think we're pretty close to being "cooked" on the base draft and 
the portions relevant to the v1MIB are very unlikely to change.

Then again, thats what last call is for!

> We did

Right, but much of that was relevant to the v2mib.  Can you point out
specific items in the v1MIB that are of concern?

Thanks for your input.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies