Re: comments on draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-02

[Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>]

> js> 5. The PIB module uses Role and RoleCombination from
> js> POLICY-DEVICE-AUX-MIB. There are several problems with this. First,
> js> I think that the Role and RoleCombination concept is so fundamental
> js> that these two TCs deserve to be defined in the COPS-PR-SPPI-TC or
> js> the FRAMEWORK-PIB module, especially since the textual explanation
> js> is already in the FRAMEWORK-PIB module. If folks prefer to have the
> js> Role and RoleCombination definition in POLICY-DEVICE-AUX-MIB, then
> js> I would say that the FRAMEWORK-PIB depends on the
> js> POLICY-DEVICE-AUX-MIB and thus we need to move the
> js> POLICY-DEVICE-AUX-MIB also into last call so that all 3 documents
> js> can proceed together.  Note also that Role is currently not used in
> js> the FRAMEWORK-PIB.
> 
> Ravi> The TCs can be moved, but can MIBs import TCs defined in PIBs?
> 
> I think that a MIB can not import a TC from a PIB (since the SPPI TC
> mechanism is different from the SMIv2 TC mechanism). However, a MIB
> can import a TC from a MIB which was converted from a PIB using the
> translation rules. Of course, this leaves the interesting question
> open whether you can import a TC from a MIB module which was only
> published as a PIB module or whether the converted MIB has to be
> available as well. I guess the IESG will have fun with this one.
 
In going through WG Last Call emails to find the updates that need to
be made to the SPPI, I came across the above, for which I haven't found
a resolution.  My suggestion is that we remove the dependencies between
the POLICY-DEVICE-AUX-MIB and the SPPI and Framework PIB.

Specifically, I suggest we "copy by value", i.e., we have the same Role
and RoleCombination TCs defined in both the POLICY-DEVICE-AUX-MIB and
in the Framework PIB.

Is that OK ?

Keith.