RE: Deleting ipSecPolicyTimePeriod related classes from IPsec PIB

I started to look at thos document again.
But this is a very looong document, so I see no way to finsih
my review before end of IETF61 week.

W.r.t. the TimePeriod, I see your TC and I also see
pmSchedTimePeriod in the pm-mib (an approved document
now in RFC-Editor queue): draft-ietf-snmpconf-pm-14.txt
They are using a PmUTF8string  (their own TC).
They also have a size limited (0..31) while you use 
unlimited length (even though your DISPLAY-HINT seems to
limit it to 255.

Similar concern for yout TimeOfDayTC.

And then I need to check how much similarities or differences
there are with the other time/schedule related TCs.

I wonder, would you not be able to just use some of the 
tables of the PM-MIB? 
Has anyone every looked at that?

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 09:44
> To: '[email protected]'; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Deleting ipSecPolicyTimePeriod related classes from IPsec
> PIB
> 
> 
> Thanks for pinging/reminding me.
> 
> It seems that I last reviewed revision 9 ad that I should take
> a look at rev 10. Will put it on my todo list.
> Not sure I can get to it before the end of IETF61.
> Actaully I doubt I will be able to do so before Nov 15 or so.
> Pls ping me again around that time if I have not answered.
> 
> Bert
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 19:33
> > To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: Deleting ipSecPolicyTimePeriod related classes 
> from IPsec PIB
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Bert,
> > 
> > In March, we received your comments on IPsec PIB and made 
> > modifications accordingly. The only remaining issue is about 
> > the ipSecPolicyTimePeriod classes. You and I discussed two 
> > solutions and both seemed to have some drawback:
> > 
> > Solution #1. Put the ipSecPolicyTImePeriod classes into a 
> > separate module within the IPsec PIB document. The drawback 
> > is that since the title of the draft is IPsec PIB, it should 
> > not contain a separate module that is not IPsec related. 
> > People will probably not look into this draft to find time 
> > related PIB classes
> > 
> > Solution #2. Put the ipSecPolicyTime Period classes into a 
> > separate module in a separate IETF draft. The drawback is 
> > that it seems to me that IETF does not want to entertain 
> > another PIB draft. 
> > 
> > At the end of our April e-mail discussions, you were going to 
> > check if the TimePeriod classes are the only ones that should 
> > be separate from the IPsec PIB. I am now proposing another 
> > simpler solution as follows. 
> > 
> > If, after checking the document, you also think that the 
> > TimePeriod classes are the only ones that are not IPsec 
> > specific, what about we delete the ipSecPolicyTimePeriod 
> > classes from the IPsec PIB so that we can move on?
> > 
> > If on the other hand, you think that there are other stuff 
> > that are not IPsec specific, please let use know. Thanks.
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Man Li
> > 
> > 
>