[eman] A single OID versus multiple OIDs for EMAN MIBs

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Mon, 13 January 2014 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 097CA1AE1D5; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:12:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BY15kfXGai_u; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:12:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDD61AE1E1; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:12:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.115] (static-72-71-250-38.cncdnh.fast04.myfairpoint.net [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB6D26B2F85; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:12:29 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F65514E3-433E-429E-BCAF-DFDDCB650C28"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQGpMCOQZTzf4B6Ryv-LFGfA4PVAsQSR3cX4K1Y_LyJXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:12:28 -0500
Message-Id: <6EA2D6B2-EB15-4DDE-8128-81ED97BB05B1@lucidvision.com>
References: <18241430.1388083851066.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <CABCOCHQGpMCOQZTzf4B6Ryv-LFGfA4PVAsQSR3cX4K1Y_LyJXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, eman mailing list <eman@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Subject: [eman] A single OID versus multiple OIDs for EMAN MIBs
X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group <eman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman/>
List-Post: <mailto:eman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:12:51 -0000

	Speaking as a MIB Doctor and EMAN co-chair, I want to call consensus so that we could close on this issue and so that the MIBs in question can be progressed as well as give direct to any future EMAN MIBs.  The consensus was that we would use the recommendations from RFC2578 instead of falling under a single "eman MIB root" OID. To this end, I am directing the various MIB editors to please restructure their OID assignments accordingly by rooting under the IANA management tree.  

	This is the relevant text from RFC 4181 section 4.5 for reference.

    The value assigned to the MODULE-IDENTITY descriptor MUST be unique
    and (for IETF standards-track MIB modules) SHOULD reside under the
    mgmt subtree [RFC2578].  Most often it will be an IANA-assigned
    value directly under mib-2 [RFC2578], although for media-specific
    MIB modules that extend the IF-MIB [RFC2863] it is customary to use
    an IANA-assigned value under transmission [RFC2578].  In the past,
    some IETF working groups have made their own assignments from
    subtrees delegated to them by IANA, but that practice has proven
    problematic and is NOT RECOMMENDED.


	Thanks,

	--Tom