Re: [IETFMIBS] IANA maintained MIB

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I do not find any reason -- not to -- either. 

I do have some comments and answers to the questions in this discussion. 

1. An IANA maintained MIB is basically an IANA registry. The document that defines should include a non-empty IANA considerations section defining the root allocation for the MIB module, and the RFC 5226 policy for adding new entries. The last example I was involved with is RFC 6933 which changed the former PhysicalClass TC in the previous versions of the Entity MIB into a new IANA-maintained TC called IANAPhysicalClass.
2. I personally believe that Expert Review would be sufficient. The 'cost' is just nominating one or two experts to help IANA when new requests hit their desk vs. writing for each new entry or set of entries an RFC that must shepherded through the IESG as AD Sponsored or IETF WG Documents as required by IETF Review policy. Is there a strong reason to involve all the IETF (like in the IETF Review policy) when new values are added to the enumeration in the TC? 
3. It is wise to follow Juergen's advice and prefix by iana the future TC name. 

Regards,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: IETFMIBS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adrian
> Farrel
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:51 PM
> To: 'Nobo Akiya (nobo)'; 't.petch'; 'Jeffrey Haas'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [IETFMIBS] IANA maintained MIB
> 
> I don't know about *need* but it seems like a really good idea.
> 
> Any reason not to?
> 
> A
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nobo Akiya (nobo) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 19 November 2013 21:21
> > To: [e-mail]; 't.petch'; 'Jeffrey Haas'; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [IETFMIBS] IANA maintained MIB
> >
> > Hi Adrian, Jeff, Tom, et al,
> >
> > Thank you for response on this thread.
> >
> > We will mimic contents from RFC 4802.
> >
> > One remaining question.
> >
> > 1. [snip from Jeff's email]
> >
> > > What's not clear is if the IANA- prefix is a requirement for the TCs
> > > that
> the BFD
> > MIBs are creating.
> >
> > Meaning, does TC MIB OID need to start with "IANA" ... i.e.
> "IANAFooBar"?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nobo
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:31 PM
> > > To: 't.petch'; 'Jeffrey Haas'; [e-mail]
> > > Cc: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
> > > Subject: RE: [IETFMIBS] IANA maintained MIB
> > >
> > > Jeff,
> > >
> > > My poster child is RFC 4802. This one I am familiar with as
> > > co-author, so I
> am
> > > happy to answer questions related to it.
> > >
> > > You'll also get good help from Michelle if you ask IANA any
> questions.
> > >
> > > A
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: IETFMIBS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > > > t.petch
> > > > Sent: 19 November 2013 18:19
> > > > To: Jeffrey Haas; [e-mail]
> > > > Cc: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
> > > > Subject: Re: [IETFMIBS] IANA maintained MIB
> > > >
> > > > Jeff
> > > >
> > > > Have you looked at 'IANA Maintained MIBs' on the IANA website?
> > > > That has most if not all the ones I know about.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Petch
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jeffrey Haas" <[e-mail]>
> > > > To: <[e-mail]>
> > > > Cc: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <[e-mail]>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:34 PM
> > > > Subject: [IETFMIBS] IANA maintained MIB
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I'm in the midst of doing my document shepherd work for the BFD
> > > > > TC MIB (draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib).  And yes, I caught the syntax
> > > > > error and have requested the authors to fix it. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > One motivation to split this TC MIB off was the long term desire
> > > > > to
> > > > make
> > > > > this an IANA maintained MIB - a detail which had remained in one
> > > > > of my
> > > > old
> > > > > emails but hadn't received follow-up until now.  As I work
> > > > > through the checklist and the commentary in RFC 5226, I find
> > > > > that I'm still not
> > > > quite
> > > > > certain what we'd need to change either the draft or the IANA
> > > > > requests in order to properly make this an IANA maintained MIB.
> > > > > Policy-wise, IETF Review is the likely appropriate thing to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can someone recommend either a relatively recent RFC/draft that
> > > > > puts a
> > > > TC
> > > > > MIB into IANA Maintenance or alternatively lend a hand and
> > > > > suggest
> > > > some text
> > > > > for the BFD TC MIB draft?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Jeff (for the BFD WG)
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > IETFMIBS mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > IETFMIBS mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETFMIBS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs