Re: vendor extensions was Re: draft-ietf-forces-model-07 update

On Mon, 2006-16-10 at 19:45 +0800, Jia Fenggen wrote:
> >SMI (which I hark back to as a well-established, widely used DDL) uses a
> >separate prefix (1.3.6.1.4.1) for the OBJECT IDENTIFIER of vendor-defined 
> object
> >types but has no convention for the textual name, except that groups of 
> related
> >object types start with the same lower-case (case is significant) string.
> >Surprisingly, given the size that this name space has grown to, I know of 
> no
> >clashes within these lower-case strings, despite there being no formal 
> database
> >of them.
> currently,protocol draft has an inital assignment on LFB classid in which 
> 0x00010000-0x7FFFFFFF are reserved for vendor extension,but just as you 
> mentions,as the LFB name space growing,this may not be enough,and further 
> probably we should enforce an registration on the LFB classid for verdors 
> but that lead to an problem like IP address assignment.
> According to the LFB class textual names,I prefer the prefix method.

Me too.

BTW, Issue #87 which i opened during the discussion on IANA entry for
the LFB model draft removes that from the protocol draft.

http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue87

Fenggen, Once there is a consensus on something that needs to be fixed,
can you please open a tracker issue?

cheers,
jamal