Re: Help/guidance on L2TPv3 MIB draft

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 03:46 PM 9/29/2002 -0400, Natale, Robert C (Bob) wrote:
>At 8/19/2002:08:26 PM, Jed Lau <jedlau@cisco.com> wrote:

I have a strong objection to this suggestion to change
a MIB design solely to make AgentX implementations easier.
When AgentX was chartered, there was an understanding 
that sub-agents would be transparent to NMS applications (command 
generators).  Asking MIB writers to use a more complicated
design is a hack. It makes the MIB more complicated
for everybody, for the sake of a corner case. That's not
good engineering.

Andy



>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