RE: MIB module numbering for TBD MIB roots

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

All,

I have been following this discussion and I have seen this
type of discussion before a few times. 

My problem is... I do not see (not even rough) consensus on
how to do things. More below.

W.r.t. what has been done in the past and that some screw ups have
occured... I guess that is always possible. But at least at the
IESG approval/IANA assignment/publication-in-RFC process, we have
things reasonably under control right now. Much better than a few
years back.

So... let me suggest that I will write down a proposal how we 
will handle these things (at the risk you will blame IETF for
becoming more bureaucratic). We'll solicit comments and then
we'll decide.

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Smith [mailto:ah_smith@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:31 AM
> To: Bill Fenner
> Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: MIB module numbering for TBD MIB roots
> 
> 
> There is an inconsistency here I think - last time I tried, 
> some other IANA
> assignments (protocol codepoints) were performed before any 
> IESG approval,
> usually at the request of WG chairs. Has this policy changed?
> 
> [There was one unfortunate screw-up a few years ago with some 
> RSVP policy
> object codepoint allocations that got switched by an ID editor between
> iterations of the draft and an implementation of which then 
> got shipped by
> the tens-of-thousands with the switched assignments - but 
> blame for that
> cannot be placed on any allocation procedures: there's no 
> point trying to
> protect against such mistakes with an artificial ban on pre-approval
> assignments for specific number series]
> 
> Andrew Smith
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org 
[mailto:owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf
Of Bill Fenner
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 11:03 AM
To: heard@pobox.com
Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org; rmonmib@ietf.org
Subject: Re: MIB module numbering for TBD MIB roots



>There would be a real benefit in getting a number assigned
>earlier in the process than is done now -- at the very least, it
>should be possible to get a number as soon as something has been
>approved for publication;  it should not be necessary to wait while
>the document bubbles to the head of the RFC Editor's queue.

This is the case now -- the number is assigned on IESG approval.
This changed somewhere around August 2000.

  Bill