Re: [Bridge-mib] Future directions

"David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com> Fri, 02 April 2004 21:37 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02148 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:37:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9WLc-0005mu-Rb for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 16:37:09 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i32Lb839022248 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:37:08 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9WLc-0005mh-Me; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 16:37:08 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9TgA-0005sM-RA for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:46:11 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22619 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:46:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9Tg8-0004Fc-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:46:08 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B9TfG-00048I-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:45:14 -0500
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net ([209.128.82.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9Teu-00040L-00 for Bridge-mib@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:44:52 -0500
Received: from NB5.dsperkins.com (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i32IilM11418; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:44:47 -0800
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040402102629.023607f0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: dperkins@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:44:23 -0800
To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>, <Bridge-mib@ietf.org>
From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Future directions
In-Reply-To: <005401c418c5$156ff820$0301a8c0@tom3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <bridge-mib.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bridge-mib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

HI,

See inline comment....
At 04:12 PM 4/2/2004 +0100, Tom Petch wrote:
>I see no problem in the IEEE producing their own MIB modules; many
>organisations do it already, in fact, follow the path
>iso(1).member-body(2).us(840).ieee802dot11(10036) and you will find the MIB
>module for IEEE 802.11 entities.
>
>I think that the MIB module should only appear in an RFC if the IEEE want
>it rooted in .1.3.6.1.2.1 otherwise they can do as many other organisations
>do and produce their own.
>
>Since IEEE are the recognised experts in this technology, of bridges and
>such-like, then I think it makes a lot of sense for them to control the MIB
>module.
Management is different. It is not until you deploy and use a technology
do you really gain the insight to be able to effectively manage it. I
believe that IEEE's technical specification development and 
standardization process (unless it has changed since I last
participated) is not balanced to create "high quality" MIB specifications.
But maybe it's changed or is being guided by participants that understand
the issues with developing specifications for management.

>It is then harder, more expensive, for the likes of me to be
>involved but that is the nature of the IEEE.
>
>Of course the MIB module will be different, increasingly so over the years
>eg in using character sets we do not, in its treatment of IPR, in setting
>aside our conventions as laid out in draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines
>and whatever else is produced by the IETF.  But that is the nature of
>development and progress.  We should only oppose this if we, as the
>originators of the 'MIB module' technology, have a strong reason for doing
>so and I have not heard one yet.
>
>Tom Petch
>
>ps is this worth cross posting to the mibs list?
Regards,
/david t. perkins 


_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib