RE: Place Holders

["Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Hi,

Assuming this is being put forth for standardization, I don't see how
the mib  module will be able to have multiple independent
implementations, or how it can be shown that all the features have been
implemented, if they are just placeholders.

There may be a real disadvatnage for the WG to use placeholders. The
objects that fall under these placeholders are apparently not necessary
to the "base" standard. When new work is added under the placeholders,
they will probably need to reopen the document and recycle at proposed
to add the new objects. If developed in separate mib modules, the
original work will not need to recycle at proposed when the new work is
added. 

David Harrington            
dbh@enterasys.com
co-chair, IETF SNMPv3 WG

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:29 AM
To: mibs@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Place Holders


The SIP MIB which just published a new version draft-ietf-sip-mib-06.txt
has what can be considered a nit which I am trying to understand whether
I should push back. The authors have reserved four object groups
(sipRedirCfg, sipRedirStats, sipRegCfg, sipRegStats) but left them empty
for 'future use'. I so not think that this is explicitly forbidden, but
it seems like a dubious practice, which can create potential holes if
other groups are defined in the coming versions, without all the four
groups being used (yet).
Any opinions?
Thanks,
Dan