Yet more on drraft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.txt
"Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 18 March 2005 19:50 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16954 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:50:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DCNYe-0004El-P5 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:54:57 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DCNNH-000KhW-5C for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:43:11 +0000
Received: from [62.241.162.31] (helo=galaxy.systems.pipex.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DCNNF-000KhF-UQ for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:43:10 +0000
Received: from pc6 (1Cust64.tnt30.lnd3.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.122.64]) by galaxy.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0ABE9E00015D; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:43:01 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <017601c52be9$eef2efc0$0601a8c0@pc6>
Reply-To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
From: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
References: <0aa401c51843$6a63fba0$adcb2bd4@Puppy> <025a01c528a0$fc6ff040$0601a8c0@pc6> <031301c52952$85dae720$0601a8c0@pc6> <000e01c52b94$e310a440$0601a8c0@pc6> <05b401c52be1$93bf4930$dccb2bd4@Puppy>
Subject: Yet more on drraft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.txt
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:38:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Digging deeper (sorry, I should done this before sending any e-mail:-( RFC 3471 says in IANA considerations "This document defines the following namespaces: o LSP Encoding Type: 8 bits o Switching Type: 8 bits o Generalized PID (G-PID): 16 bits All future assignments should be allocated through IETF Consensus action or documented in a Specification. LSP Encoding Type - valid value range is 1-255. This document defines values 1-11. Switching Type - valid value range is 1-255. This document defines values 1-4, 100, 150 and 200. Generalized PID (G-PID) - valid value range is 0-1500. This document defines values 0-46." fine no problem Switching type draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt adds 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) but makes no mention of that in IANA considerations; should it? The MIB text cites as reference draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt which has no IANA considerations and I cannot see adding a value; should this be OSPF-gmpls-extensions? And draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt says "Switching Type: Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC Action. " ie this is now more restrictive than RFC 3471; is this really intended? LSP encoding type The MIB cites draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-06.txt, This should be -09 which says - LSP Encoding Type: 12 defined in Section 3.1.1 13 defined in Section 3.1.1 Allocation Policy: [0..239] Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC Action. ie this is now more restrictive than RFC3471; was this intended? Generalized PID Same story, MIB cites draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-06.txt, which should be -09, does add values but again is more restrictive about how the values can be updated. Standing back, there are these three enumerations, they will be added to over the years, what is the right policy for updating them? Standards track, expert review, IETF consensus? How best to keep the MIBS in line with the I-Ds at least at initial publication, which is the authoritative document?(define it all in the MIB:-) Are there any more in other documents, perhaps for which no MIB yet exists? (RFC 3471 does list five sets of numbers - I have only looked at these three - and there an awfully large number of GMPLS documents most of which I have not looked at)
- Drafts ready for WG last call Adrian Farrel
- Re: Drafts ready for WG last call Thomas D. Nadeau
- Re: Drafts ready for WG last call Adrian Farrel
- comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-07.txt Tom Petch
- Re: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-07… Adrian Farrel
- comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.txt Tom Petch
- Re: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.… Adrian Farrel
- Re: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.… Tom Petch
- Re: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.… Adrian Farrel
- Enumerations in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.… Tom Petch
- Re: Enumerations in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib… Adrian Farrel
- Yet more on drraft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.txt Tom Petch
- Re: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-07… Adrian Farrel
- Re: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Enumerations in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib… Adrian Farrel