RE: [AVT] Follow up to AVT meeting

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. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com]
> Sent: 11 April, 2005 3:52 PM
> 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,
> 
> Having watched this discussion it seems from my perspective that the 
> right thing for the WG to do is the following:
> 
> - Updated the RTP MIB for a more modular design with a common session 
> identification table as the root. From this common root different 
> modules for reporting on the session can be added.
> - Update the reporting parts of the RTP MIB to be added to the common 
> root. Split it into reasonable modules based on functionality.
> - Make RTCP XR MIB also as an addition to the common session root.
> 
> The reason for this proposal is to make the RTP and RTCP XR 
> MIBs a truly 
> integrated solution while still avoiding any strict requirement to 
> implement reporting modules that is not desired in specific 
> applications. It is quite obvious that there is a central common part 
> for all reporting that is the session id in form of addresses 
> and ports 
> combined with when the session happened.
> 
> I do understand the desire to take the road with least work 
> now for RTCP 
> XR MIB, however I think that will significantly hurt the future for 
> management for RTP, both as i currently are and when 
> additional things 
> are added.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 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

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