Re: please comment on draft-ops-taddress-mib-01.txt

["Glenn Mansfield Keeni" <glenn@cysol.co.jp>]

Jurgen,
        You probably meant draft-ietf-ops-taddress-mib-01.txt
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
To: "mibs" <mibs@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 7:51 PM
Subject: please comment on draft-ops-taddress-mib-01.txt


> 
> I am looking for comments on draft-ops-taddress-mib-01.txt. In
> particular, I am looking for input on the open issues listed
> in the document:
> 
> : 1.  Provide suitable transport domain and address format definitions
> :     for DNS names, e.g.  www.tu-bs.de:80?
> :
> : 2.  This version adopts a URL format wherever possible, e.g.
> :     10.1.2.3:80 instead of 10.1.2.3/80 for IPv4 and
> :     [00:00:00:00:0A:01:02:03]:80 instead of
> :     00:00:00:00:0A:01:02:03/80 for IPv6 (RFC 2732).  Is this useful?
> :     Are the DISPLAY-HINTs to achieve the desired output format
> :     acceptable?
> :
> : 3.  Need to find experts to review the TC definitions for protocols
> :     we are not familiar with (TransportAddressOSI,
> :     TransportAddressNBP, TransportAddressIPX).  Remove the TCs if no
> :     expert can be found.
> :
> : 4.  Add references and REFERENCE clauses for the various address
> :     formats? Probably copying stuff from RFC 1906? Are the references
> :     in RFC 1906 still valid?
> :
> : 5.  Shall we add more explicit guidelines and examples for the usage
> :     of the TransportAddressType TC, similar to what is in the INET-
> :     ADDRESS-MIB document?
> :
> : 6.  Support for SCTP? How does it work with SCTP failover?
> :
> : 7.  Should we give guidance when to use the RFC 1906 definitions and
> :     when to use the definitions provided by this memo?
> :
> : 8.  Any ideas for a better descriptor prefix to be used throughout
> :     this MIB module?
> 
> Please read the document and share your comments so that we can get
> this piece of work completed relatively soon.
> 
> /js
> 
>