[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.tx t
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:03:50AM -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
> >
> > The real interesting question is how RFC 2674 should pick up this
> > definition. Is the idea that they import form the new TC MIB and
> > just remove their definition? That might break other imports. If
> > they import and keep the original definition in RFC 2674, you will
> > have to distinguish the two TCs with the same name, which is likely
> > to test the quality of MIB parsers.
> >
> > So perhaps the new TCs should in fact go into an update of RFC 2674
> > rather than introducing a new module? This would at least side-step
> > this interesting problem...
>
> This approach would solve the "legal" problems but it does
> have some significant drawbacks:
>
> - It's necessary to re-spin RFC 2674. Bert has suggested an
> incremental update as one way to get around this.
>
> - It causes any module that imports VlanID and kin to depend
> normatively on the P-BRIDGE-MIB. The upshot would be that absent a
> variance of some kind, no module importing VlanID and kin could
> advance on the standards track faster than P-BRIDGE-MIB. That's not
> desirable, because changes to things that are unrelated to VlanID
> and kin could hold back advancement.
So what is your suggestion how RFC 2674 should pick up the new TCs? Or
is your suggestion to leave RFC 2674 alone?
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany