[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Place Holders






Dave / Dan, ,

I'm not seeing the problem y'all are seeing here.  We're not talking about
OBJECT-GROUPs in the conformance sense.  They're just setting aside empty
OID subtrees, for possible use later.  I don't see why the current document
would be prevented from advancing all the way to Full Standard with these
placeholders in it: the only requirement is that there be independent
implementations of all the objects and notifications that *are* there.
Later, separate documents (with separate MIB modules) could be introduced,
to define objects to populate these subtrees.  These new modules would just
IMPORT the subtree roots, and go from there.

This approach *might* be distasteful from an IANA perspective (or it might
not  be -- I don't know).  But I don't see anything wrong with it from
either the SMI or IETF-process side.

Regards,
Bob

Bob Moore
WebSphere Advanced Design and Technology
WebSphere Platform System House
IBM Software Group
+1-919-254-4436
remoore@us.ibm.com



                                                                                                                                       
                      "Harrington,                                                                                                     
                      David"                   To:       "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, <mibs@ops.ietf.org>              
                      <dbh@enterasys.co        cc:                                                                                     
                      m>                       Subject:  RE: Place Holders                                                             
                      Sent by:                                                                                                         
                      owner-mibs@ops.ie                                                                                                
                      tf.org                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       
                      07/02/2003 11:54                                                                                                 
                      AM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       




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