RE: RE: Positioning of gBondATM, Eth and TDIM MIB modules

Menahem,
I agree with Naren that the GBOND-ETH-MIB, GBOND-ATM-MIB and GBOND-TDIM-MIB modules should seat under the common GBOND-MIB OID, which reflects the existing hierarchy between these modules.
 
I don't foresee the creation of a new bonding technique under G.Bond, in addition to the 3 existing ones, but see no harm in adding a sub-section in GBOND-MIB's "IANA Considerations" section describing OID assignments for the new modules (taken almost verbatim from section 3 of RFC 3737).
 
Regards,
-E.



  _____  

	From: Menachem Dodge [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 15:28
	To: [email protected]
	Subject: FW: [Adslmib] RE: Positioning of gBondATM, Eth and TDIM MIB modules
	
	
	Hello,
	 
	    I haven't seen any response on this issue. 
	 
	    Naren do you still wish to put the specific MIB modules under the common MIB?
	 
	As Bert pointed out, if we do this there will be a need to write an additional RFC explaining the OID
	assignments (as was done by RMONMIB WG RFC 3737). In addition, one or two people will always need to be available to advise the IANA should new OID assignments be required in the future. If MIB modules are placed under MIB-II then 
	the IANA provides this service.
	 
	    Thoughts?
	 
	    Best Regards,
	    Menachem

  _____  

	From: Menachem Dodge 
	Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:45 AM
	To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); NAIR,NARENDRANATH (NARENDRANATH)** CTR **; [email protected]
	Cc: [email protected]; Moti Morgenstern
	Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: Positioning of gBondATM, Eth and TDIM MIB modules
	
	
	Hi,
	 
	    Looking at the minutes from IETF-68, this matter was intended to be raised with the MIB Doctors as a question. So have the editors had second thoughts.
	 
	    I would like to see where everyone on the WG stands on this issue.
	 
	    Best Regards,
	    Menachem.    
	
  _____  

	From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:59 PM
	To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); NAIR,NARENDRANATH (NARENDRANATH)** CTR **; [email protected]
	Cc: [email protected]; Moti Morgenstern
	Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: Positioning of gBondATM, Eth and TDIM MIB modules
	
	
	Yes. Frankly speaking, it is not clear to me why would the WG adopt a policy of assigning root OIDs that is NOT RECOMMENDED by RFC 4181. In case the WG intents to require such a policy I suggest that you prepare a strong argument that shows what problems would be created by following RFC 4181. 
	 
	Dan
	 
	 
	 
	 


  _____  

		From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]] 
		Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:38 PM
		To: NAIR,NARENDRANATH (NARENDRANATH)** CTR **; [email protected]
		Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
		Subject: [Adslmib] RE: Positioning of gBondATM, Eth and TDIM MIB modules
		
		
		I guess, this is up to Dan (AD) to decide.
		If you want to keep your own tree under a common gbond tree/branch,
		then I suggest you would need a document aka RFC3737 and then
		Let IAN do the registration.
		 

		Bert Wijnen 

		 


  _____  

			From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
			Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:22 AM
			To: [email protected]; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
			Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
			Subject: Positioning of gBondATM, Eth and TDIM MIB modules
			
			

			Hi,
			
			In IETF-68, Bert had mentioned that gBondATM, Eth and TDIM should be under mib-2 in addition to the gBond MIB modules. This was according to the RFC4181 guideline on MODULE-IDENTITY (page number 13):
			
			    "The value assigned to the MODULE-IDENTITY descriptor MUST be unique
			     and (for IETF standards-track MIB modules) SHOULD reside under the
			     mgmt subtree [RFC2578].  Most often it will be an IANA-assigned
			     value directly under mib-2 [RFC2578], although for media-specific
			     MIB modules that extend the IF-MIB [RFC2863] it is customary to use
			     an IANA-assigned value under transmission [RFC2578].  In the past,
			     some IETF working groups have made their own assignments from
			     subtrees delegated to them by IANA, but that practice has proven
			     problematic and is NOT RECOMMENDED."
			
			However, in the design of gBond MIBs we chose to have the ATM, Eth and TDIM specific MIB modules under gBond (common) MIB. The reason for such a design was the following:
			
			a) gBond common MIB module cannot exist on its own; for any system to implement bonding MIB, it would need to implement the common mib as well of the specific technology that it intends to support.
			
			b) It does not make sense to put managed objects for all technologies into one MIB module, as a system might need to implement managed objects for only a subset of the technologies viz. ATM, Eth and TDIM.
			
			In the particular case of the gBond MIB, the editors' view is that there exist valid reasons for placing the technology specific MIB modules under gBond MIB subtree.
			
			Therefore, I would like to request the working group members to comment on this point, so that the case is carefully considered.
			
			regards,
			Naren
			
			


The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. 

WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

www.wipro.com

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib