Re: Future directions

HI,

See inline comment....
At 04:12 PM 4/2/2004 +0100, Tom Petch wrote:
>I see no problem in the IEEE producing their own MIB modules; many
>organisations do it already, in fact, follow the path
>iso(1).member-body(2).us(840).ieee802dot11(10036) and you will find the MIB
>module for IEEE 802.11 entities.
>
>I think that the MIB module should only appear in an RFC if the IEEE want
>it rooted in .1.3.6.1.2.1 otherwise they can do as many other organisations
>do and produce their own.
>
>Since IEEE are the recognised experts in this technology, of bridges and
>such-like, then I think it makes a lot of sense for them to control the MIB
>module.
Management is different. It is not until you deploy and use a technology
do you really gain the insight to be able to effectively manage it. I
believe that IEEE's technical specification development and 
standardization process (unless it has changed since I last
participated) is not balanced to create "high quality" MIB specifications.
But maybe it's changed or is being guided by participants that understand
the issues with developing specifications for management.

>It is then harder, more expensive, for the likes of me to be
>involved but that is the nature of the IEEE.
>
>Of course the MIB module will be different, increasingly so over the years
>eg in using character sets we do not, in its treatment of IPR, in setting
>aside our conventions as laid out in draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines
>and whatever else is produced by the IETF.  But that is the nature of
>development and progress.  We should only oppose this if we, as the
>originators of the 'MIB module' technology, have a strong reason for doing
>so and I have not heard one yet.
>
>Tom Petch
>
>ps is this worth cross posting to the mibs list?
Regards,
/david t. perkins