RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt

Hi -

> From: Eduardo Cardona <[email protected]>
> Sent: Mar 3, 2004 2:04 AM
> To: Randy Presuhn <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> Cc: "Ipcdn List (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt
...

Thanks for the comments!

...
> (*) traceRouteCtlMiscOptions 
> It appears to me an uncanny object and rather implementations may opt to
> extend the capabilities in the private branch, could leave with that to
> avoid deprecation, of if there are field implementations. 

any suggested changes?

...
> Should the proposal below being include in the remops MIB or should we
> update IPCDN cable gateway Tools MIB module to be just the compliance
> statement outlined below? 

Both seem reasonable.  If we can include a "basic" compliance statement
to suit your needs without jeopardizing progression, that seems like
an option that I would prefer as a technical contributor, though I
admit that it is not a strong preference and would like to hear other
opinions.

> RFC 3014 (LOG-MIB) introduces the concept of "named log" and "null named
> log" default entry for devices not supporting the named log 
> Named log is analog to disman remops draft for "OwnerIndex" and
> "TestName"  where default entries are created
> (null owner, null TestName) for a manager requested operation of PING/
> TRACEROUTE, NSLOOKUP, mostly for small foot-print devices with no
> network monitoring role at the connectivity level as pretended with this
> updated RFC.

I have no problem with this in principle, and think it would be
really nice if we can verify that the MIB definitions do not preclude
operating this way.

> In summary A new Compliance Statement for small devices with no
> monitoring capabilities to :
...

I'd phrase it a bit differently.  Rather than "remove" information,
I think the proposal is to ensure that it can function meaningfully using
a small subset of the objects.

I'd like to hear from Juergen (and others) regarding the details of the proposed
compliance material, especially with regard to whether there are
any details in the current object definitions that would prevent this usage.

Randy