Re: [BEHAVE] nat-mib-06: separate MIB modules

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

David,

What you're proposing is exactly what we had been doing initially. It 
was then suggested to us that we should change to what we have 
currently, which we did. We authors are not MIB doctors, and I don't 
think any one of us really cares which technical form this has. We just 
need the functionality.

Going from one form to another is quite a bit of work, so you'll 
understand we want to be certain that this time we won't be told to go 
back again in the later stages of publication. I'm thinking about IESG 
review here.

So if we could get some early feedback from an AD about which way we are 
expected to go, that would be great.

Thanks,
Simon

Le 2013-05-03 01:14, ietfdbh a écrit :
> I would like to suggest a change.
> If I understand correctly, this document deprecates the entire RFC4008
> NAT-MIB, and proposes a completely new MIB under the same name.
> I think this is sub-optimal.
> In NMS applications that support multiple devices, some of which support
> RFC4008 and some of which support this new MIB module, it will be
> potentially confusing to call them by the same name.
> You really have two completely different MIB modules that you are trying to
> sell under the same name.
> I think that is not a good idea.
>
> I recommend writing an RFC4008bis document to deprecate the RFC4008 NAT-MIB.
> Then put your proposed new MIB objects into a separate MIB module, using a
> different name for the newly designed MIB for managing NATs
> (maybe NEW-NAT-MIB, but I'd hope for something that more accurately
> describes the modified purpose of the MIB, maybe NAT-MONITORING-MIB)
> Put this in a separate RFC.
>
> I think that would be a much cleaner solution, and much more obvious what
> you are doing here.