RE: [AVT] Follow up to AVT meeting - RTCP XR MIB vs RTP MIB

"Alan Clark" <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com> Mon, 11 April 2005 18:19 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06131 for <avt-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:19:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DL3fJ-0000Ml-Ew for avt-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:29:41 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DL3TB-0008KK-Qi; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:17:09 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DL3T9-0008Jw-KR for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:17:08 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05960 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mx.cbeyond.net ([66.180.96.58] helo=mx.cbeyond.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DL3cS-0000JN-0E for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:26:44 -0400
Received: from [64.238.103.215] (port=2925 helo=telws116) by mx.cbeyond.com with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DL3Sv-0006dO-6B; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:16:53 -0400
From: Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Subject: RE: [AVT] Follow up to AVT meeting - RTCP XR MIB vs RTP MIB
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:16:51 -0400
Message-ID: <BGEKJNNFCPJKLLMMDMELIENKHAAA.alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <425A7F7D.6040802@ericsson.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Amy Pendleton <aspen@nortel.com>, "Avt@Ietf. Org" <avt@ietf.org>, csp@csperkins.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Magnus

I can try and implement this approach during the next week, and have a
revised draft(s) done by next Monday

Alan


-----Original Message-----
From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Magnus Westerlund
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: Amy Pendleton; Avt@Ietf. Org; csp@csperkins.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] Follow up to AVT meeting - RTCP XR MIB vs RTP MIB


Hi Dan,

Sure, I don't want to go against any recommendations. This was only due
to my lack of MIB knowledge. The important thing is to get good
integration and extensibility.

Cheers

Magnus

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Magnus,
>
> I agree and support your proposal.
>
> I have however a concern related to your third point:
>
>
>>- Make RTCP XR MIB also as an addition to the common session root.
>
>
> If by this you mean making the RTCP XR MIB a subtree under the RTP MIB, I
believe that this is not necessary, and also contrary to the design
recommendations of the Operations and Management Area
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-04.
txt
>
>    - The value assigned to the MODULE-IDENTITY descriptor MUST be unique
>      and (for IETF standards-track MIB modules) SHOULD reside under the
>      mgmt subtree [RFC2578].  Most often it will be an IANA-assigned
>      value directly under mib-2 [RFC2578], although for media-specific
>      MIB modules that extend the IF-MIB [RFC2863] it is customary to use
>      an IANA-assigned value under transmission [RFC2578].  In the past
>      some IETF working groups have made their own assignments from
>      subtrees delegated to them by IANA, but that practice has proven
>      problematic and is NOT RECOMMENDED.
>
> This does not affect the integrality that you are trying to reach for the
RTP MIB and RTCP XR MIB, as a OID is just a pointer in the management
objects space. As long as the RTP MIB and RTCP XR MIB are different MIB
modules defined by two different documents I suggest that we follow the MIB
Guidelines recommendations.
>


--

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt


_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt