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

Menachem,
 
Let's look at the relevant paragraph from RFC 4181 again:
- 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.
The words "most often" and "customary" can hardly be considered as recommendations,
so there's no hard requirement for the location of the MODULE-IDENTITY OIDs, i.e. it does not
have to be placed directly under mib-2.
The NOT RECOMMENDED practice is a non-IANA assignment of MODULE-IDENTITY
descriptors under a delegated subtree.
Therefore I suggest we keep the existing MIB hierarchy, but instead
of assigning the 1st 3 module OIDs ourselves, we ask IANA to assign
them to be completely compliant to the spirit of RFC 4181, that is,
the MODULE-IDENTITY for each of the G.Bond schemes would be declared
as:
gBondAtmMIB MODULE-IDENTITY  ... ::= { gBondMIB XXX }
gBondEthMIB MODULE-IDENTITY  ... ::= { gBondMIB YYY }
gBondTdimMIB MODULE-IDENTITY ... ::= { gBondMIB ZZZ }
with an editor's note asking IANA to allocate the XXX, YYY and ZZZ numbers.
Regards,
-E.

 


  _____  

	From: Menachem Dodge [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:23
	To: Moti Morgenstern; [email protected]; Edward Beili
	Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: Positioning of gBondATM, Eth and TDIM MIB modules
	
	
	    That's fine, but Dan has requested a stong argument if we intend to go down this path, which 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's email 16/7/07).
	 
	    What are the problems that would incur if we follow RFC 4181?  (Please explain this on the mailing list)
	 
	    Best Regards,
	    Menachem

  _____  

	From: Moti Morgenstern 
	Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:58 AM
	To: [email protected]; [email protected]
	Cc: Menachem Dodge
	Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: Positioning of gBondATM, Eth and TDIM MIB modules
	
	
	Hi Naren,
	 
	I agree. Putting the technology specific MIBs under the common MIB is preferred.
	 
	Regards,
	Moti Morgenstern
	 

  _____  

	From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 7:58 PM
	To: [email protected]; Moti Morgenstern
	Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: Positioning of gBondATM, Eth and TDIM MIB modules
	
	

	Moti, Ed,

	 

	What is your opinion? In my view, putting them all under mib-2 might be confusing. I prefer the technology specific MIBs to be grouped under the common MIB. 

	 

	Thanks,

	naren

	 

	--

	Narendranath Nair

	Cell: +91 99 00 12 96 29

	Track me at:http://beta.plazes.com/user/nnair/

	
  _____  


	From: Menachem Dodge [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 5:58 PM
	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

			 


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