RE: MIB reviewer comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv 2-06.txt

Randy,

I am not the author of RFC 2669, where the two objects were defined but
commented out. Here is what is in RFC 2669:
-- docsDevFilterPolicyType ::= { docsDevFilterPolicyEntry 3} Removed
-- docsDevFilterPolicyAction ::= { docsDevFilterPolicyEntry 4 } removed

I was the author of this draft back in March 2001, when I originally added
the "really bizarre group". I think I added it due to comments from a MIB
doctor about how to handle these commented-out MIB objects, but I can't find
those specific comments in my mail archives anymore. This was two employers
and over 2 1/2 years ago.

So what do you want me to do with respect to these commented-out objects
from RFC 2669 in this internet-draft?
1. Leave the commented-out objects from RFC 2669 in the internet-draft
as-is? (This option seemed to cause heartburn to a previous MIB doctor, at
least.)
2. Delete the commented objects from the internet-draft? (This leaves an OID
numbering hole in the internet-draft, with potentially no explanation.)
3. Use the "really bizarre group" to obsolete the non-existant objects, per
the current internet-draft? (This explains that there are useless
objects/OIDs from RFC 2669, but admittedly it is "bizarre".)
4. Do something else. (Tell me what.)

This discussion is about never-implemented -- and never-will-be-implemented
-- MIB objects. All I care about is consistent, rationale guidance.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Randy Presuhn
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ipcdn] MIB reviewer comments on
draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-06.txt


Hi -

> From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email protected]>
> To: "'Randy Presuhn'" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 5:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] MIB reviewer comments on
draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-06.txt
...
> Those two MIB objects (docsDevFilterPolicyType, docsDevFilterPolicyAction)
> were defined in the original preparation of RFC 2669, but those MIB
objects
> were commented out prior to RFC publication. The purpose of this object
> group is to identify those MIB objects so that the OIDs would not
> accidentally be reassigned.

This seems really bizarre.  If they were taken out prior to publication,
then those object identifiers were never really assigned.

> If there is a better approach for the draft to take, let me know.
...

I'm still trying to figure out what the real objective was.

Randy



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