Re: Help/guidance on L2TPv3 MIB draft

["Natale, Robert C (Bob)" <bnatale@lucent.com>]

At 8/19/2002:08:26 PM, Jed Lau <jedlau@cisco.com> wrote:

Hi Jed,

Please review this MIB for compatibility with the
IETF standard SNMP agent extensibility protocol,
AgentX (RFC2741...and RFC2742 can also give you
some additional insight into AgentX operations).

The fundamental issue is that scalar objects are
potentially problematic for AgentX. They should be
avoided by putting them into a table indexed by
some form of "AgentEntityID" object (an exercise
left to the implementer for now :-().

Note that the issue of AgentX compatibility for
MIB writers will be addressed in a forthcoming
Internet Draft that I will submit...perhaps with
an extended applicability statement for AgentX
(Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of RFC2741 do a good
job of the basics already)...for consideration by
the relevant IETF WGs. My hope is that consideration
of this Draft will lead to adding a statement or two
to the standard "SNMP Framework" boilerplate to
document these requirements for MIB writers.

Guidance from Bert re where to discuss this
issue -- AgentX compatibility guidelines for
SNMP MIBs -- will be appreciated. (The AgentX
e-mail list is still operative, but the WG is
closed pending further work when its time to
move to Full Standard status.)

Cheers,

BobN
- - - - -
>Hi,
>
>I am one of three co-authors of the L2TPv3 MIB draft. I attended the IETF
in
>Yokohama in July, and I got this e-mail address during one of the
plenaries. I
>understand that somebody behind this e-mail address might be able to
provide us
>with some guidance in developing our MIB.
>
>The first draft of the MIB is <draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tpmib-base-00.txt>.
We'd
>like to get some feedback regarding our organization of the MIB tables. The
>L2TPv3 (Layer Two Tunneling Protocol, Version 3) MIB borrows a lot from its
>predecessor, <draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-mib-04.txt>. However, it introduces a
>new framework that, we hope, allows us to better modularize the various
>components of the tunneling protocol (e.g. pseudowire, payload, transport,
>etc.). The intention is to allow future enhancements to the protocol (e.g.
>additions to the list of supported payloads or transport types) to occur in
>scalable and modular manner.
>
>I intend to go into further details and ask some specific questions in a
>subsequent e-mail. Should I send follow-up e-mails to this address, or
should
>I interface with a specific individual?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Jed Lau