RE: GMPLS MIB I-D updates

["Cheenu Srinivasan" <[e-mail]>]

Just to reiterate the authors' view:

1. We can change the MIB/doc name to whatever the WG/chairs/ADs think
   is appropriate.

2. We believe CCAMP is the appropriate place to continue this
   work since the extensions are completely GMPLS related. This was
   discussed in Salt Lake City and (we thought) agreed upon but
   we would like to hear the chairs'/AD's word on this.

3. We request that these be adopted as WG documents; shortly
   thereafter we will reissue them under the correct MIB and document
   names.

Thanks,
Cheenu


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:50 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Joan Cucchiara; Cheenu Srinivasan; [e-mail]; Kireeti
> Kompella; Vijay Gill; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: GMPLS MIB I-D updates
> 
> 
> 
>          Hi,
> 
> >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.
> 
>          The question of what to name the documents is up
> to the WG; the co-authors are indifferent on this issue.
> Just some background.  The state of the GMPLS MIBs is that they
> do indeed extend existing  MPLS MIBs  to facilitate new GMPLS
> functions. Specifically, they have been modified to
> accommodate longer labels, and a few other things.
> However, in the future, additional modifications, features 
> and functions
> may be added that are GMPLS-specific.
> 
> >That is independent of the question of which WG does the work.
> 
>          As I recall, the question of where this work is to be done
> was already discussed and decided that it would happen in
> CCAMP. However, the ADs, George and Kareeti might want to
> verify this for us all. The co-authors are agnostic as to 
> where the work
> gets done; however, the point raised above about the MIBs potentially
> changing more for GMPLS-specifics might bias the work to be done
> in CCAMP. This is also why we chose the naming of the documents.
> 
>          --Tom
> 
> 
> 
> >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
> > > > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. 
> 
>