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

Hi,jamal,
   I haven't seen tom's answer and joel's still not speaking out on that,so 
i have to wait them before open an tracker issue.
Yours,Fenggen
>From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: Jia Fenggen <[email protected]>
>CC: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: vendor extensions was Re: draft-ietf-forces-model-07 update
>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:15:50 -0400
>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
浜ㄤ涓澶х靛欢绯荤 MSN Hotmail  http://www.hotmail.com