[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MIB identification guidance
At 1/15/2001:07:57 PM, David T. Perkins wrote:
Hi Dave (and Bill),
>This issue keeps recurring. The tension is between stability and
>testing to see if viable. Unfortunately, it seems that when an
>experimental OID is provided and testing is successfully done,
>then there is a BIG reluctance to change the implementations.
>So, I believe that the best approach is to not provide an OID
>in the experimental branch unless the OID will stay experimental.
And, iirc, Keith took that same position on a similar thread
a while back. (Apologies in advance, Keith, if I am mis-recalling.)
>And to only provide an OID under a standards branch when the
>document has been approved by the IESG.
Ok, so you are saying that "approved by the IESG" is "the very
beginning of its entry onto the Internet standards track" in
this excerpt form RFC2578:
"then at the very beginning of its entry onto the Internet standards
track, the objects are moved under the mgmt(2) subtree."
>In the use of OID values below, there are examples of "stolen"
>assignments. This is pretty bad, and the I-Ds should not be allowed
>to be posted in the I-D directory that have stolen assignments.
What do you recommend, then, for non-experimental WG MIB drafts
before that point?
(Btw, is this point discussed in "Understanding SNMP MIBs"...?)
>Thanks for the list Bill!
Yeah, that URL will be quite handy!
Thanks for the help,