Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] SMIv1 MIB documents in the Softwire Hub & Spoke Deployment Framework with L2TPv2

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:47:03 +0100

The Softwire Hub & Spoke Deployment Framework with L2TPv2 I-D
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-hs-framework-l2t
pv2-10.txt is on the agenda of the IESG telechat tomorrow for approval
as a Proposed Standard. This document refers in one of its normative
sections two SMIv1 MIB documents - RFC 1471 and RFC 1473. What is the
opinion of the MIB doctors? Should this be allowed for a deployment
framework in the Internet nowadays, or rather should the document
recommend for the further update of these documents with SMIv2 versions?

Dan
_______________________________________________
MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:45:25 -0500

I think two things should be looked at.
1) whether the SMIv1 MIB modules use anything not
supported/recommended in SMIv2 (such as IPAddress or Opaque) 
2) whether the updates to PPP (e.g. RFC1661) make any aspects of the
MIB module dated.

If the SMIv1 MIB modules can be easily translated into SMIv2, and the
information model still makes sense, then I don't have much issue with
the references.

If we do not want references to SMIv1 MIB modules, then we should
systematically produce SMIv2 updates for any SMIv1 MIB modules, BEFORE
somebody wants to reference them.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, 
> Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 1:47 PM
> To: MIB Doctors (E-mail)
> Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] SMIv1 MIB documents in the Softwire 
> Hub & SpokeDeployment Framework with L2TPv2
>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:25:42 +0100

> somebody wants to reference them.

I think step 0) is to look at the context in which the reference is
made. The ID question lists RFC 1471 and RFC 1473 as MIB modules in
section and the only explanation provided is this sentence for the
whole section containing about 20 references to RFCs:

   This section groups various Internet standards documents and other
   publications used in Softwires.

I have no clue what this actually means. The section title is
"Standardization Status" but interestingly the document lists the RFCs
without any explanation what the standardization status is. In section
9.2, I find this statement:

   MIB support for L2TPv2 and PPP are documented (see Section 4.4).
   Also see [RFC4293].

This again does not tell me that the listed set of MIB modules means.
If the idea that these MIB modules are required to be implemented,
then this should be more clearly spelled out.

At this point in time, I think I have a problem to understand what the
reference actually means, which I think is a problem with the document
that needs to be fixed before Dave's questions 1) and 2) can be answered.

/js

-- 
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/>
_______________________________________________
MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors

---

From: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:27:58 +0100

Without having looked at the document.... I think it would be good if we can move
away from SMIv1 and move to SMIv2. At the other hand, I would not want to 
spend a lot of make-work effort to achive it.

Bert
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) 
  To: MIB Doctors (E-mail) 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:47 PM
  Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] SMIv1 MIB documents in the Softwire Hub & SpokeDeployment Framework with L2TPv2

  Dan

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:06:09 +0100

If I read correctly section 1.4, excepting the sections titled
Considerations the other would be required for interoperability and
correct operation. This would include section 4 that lists the RFCs. On
the other hand the RFCs would be Normative References in this case. It
is inconsistent. I will include this in the DISCUSS that I am preparing
which will be consistent :-) (there are even more AAA and RADIUS issues
with this document).

Dan

> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder 

> If the idea that these MIB modules are required to be 
> implemented, then this should be more clearly spelled out.
> 
> At this point in time, I think I have a problem to understand 
> what the reference actually means, which I think is a problem 
> with the document that needs to be fixed before Dave's 
> questions 1) and 2) can be answered.
> 
> /js
> 
> --