RE: GMPLS MIB I-D updates

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the posting. 
I have not yet looked at these new MIBs.
If they are indeed updates or enhancements to the MPLS versions,
then they should follow the rules/guidelines that we have for
updating MIB Modules as outlined in RFC2578. 

That is independent of the question of which WG does the work.

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joan Cucchiara [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 1:43 AM
> To: Cheenu Srinivasan
> Cc: [e-mail]; Kireeti Kompella; Vijay Gill
> Subject: Re: GMPLS MIB I-D updates
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> I would like to raise 2 concerns with having this working
> group adopt draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-01.txt (aka 
> GMPLS-LSR-MIB)
> and draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-01.txt (aka GMPLS-TE-MIB):
> 
> 1) Since these 2 proposed MIBs (GMPLS-LSR-MIB and GMPLS-TE-MIB)
> are updates to 2 of the MIBs in the MPLS working group, 
> namely the MPLS-LSR-MIB and the MPLS-TE-MIB, I think these MIBs 
> should be proposed in the MPLS working group which is where folks 
> have experience in implementing and using them.  In my opinion the
> additions for GMPLS to these MIBs is minor and it would be better
> to stick with the MPLS working group for these MIBs.
> 
> 2) The choice of names for these MIBs, i.e. GMPLS-LSR-MIB and
> GMPLS-TE-MIB,
> does not follow how the IETF names a new version of a MIB.
> The current trend in the IETF is to use the same name for
> the draft versions of an existing MIB and differentiate this
> with the draft title (and eventually a new RFC number).  As examples:
> 
> draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2558bis-00.txt with MIB name: SONET-MIB
> draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2496bis-00.txt with MIB name: DS3-MIB
> draft-ietf-hubmib-etherif-mib-v3-00.txt with MIB name: EtherLike-MIB
> draft-ietf-hubmib-mau-mib-v3-00.txt with MIB name: MAU-MIB
> draft-ietf-snmpv3-update-mib-07.txt with MIB name: SNMPv2-MIB
> and many others...
> 
> My biggest concern is that the names of GMPLS-LSR-MIB and GMPLS-TE-MIB
> will be confusing and misleading to customers.  Could these be
> renamed MPLS-LSR-MIB and MPLS-TE-MIB, and thus, accurately reflect
> what they are?
> 
> thanks,
>  -Joan
> 
> Cheenu Srinivasan wrote:
> > 
> > We would like to request that these four I-Ds be adopted as CCAMP
> > working group documents.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Tom, Cheenu, Adrian, Tim, Ed
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Cheenu Srinivasan
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:48 PM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Cc: Thomas Nadeau (E-mail); Adrian Farrel (E-mail); Tim 
> Hall (E-mail);
> > > Ed Harrison (E-mail)
> > > Subject: GMPLS MIB I-D updates
> > >
> > >
> > > The following I-D updates have been posted:
> > >
> > >   draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-01.txt
> > >   draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-01.txt
> > >   draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-01.txt
> > >   draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-label-mib-01.txt
> > >
> > > They are aligned with each other and have been verified to
> > > compile cleanly with smilint.
> > >
> > > They should appear on the IETF's site shortly. Copies are
> > > attached for your reference.
> > >
> > > Cheenu
> > >
>