Re: [IETFMIBS] [OPS-AREA] Updating a published MIB

t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Thu, 01 August 2013 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: ietfmibs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfmibs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F24121F9995; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.642, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n+QemwDJzHMf; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B7121F92B8; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail38-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.234) by CO1EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (10.243.66.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:51:36 +0000
Received: from mail38-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail38-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F775801F8; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:51:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.253.197; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:DBXPRD0710HT001.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -14
X-BigFish: PS-14(zz9371I542I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz8275ch1de098h1033IL8275bh8275dh1de097hz2dh2a8h5a9h668h839h947hd24hf0ah1177h1179h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1758h17f1h184fh1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1e23h304l1d11m1155h)
Received: from mail38-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail38-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1375347068799874_10566; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:51:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS032.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.227]) by mail38-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5747640047; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:51:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DBXPRD0710HT001.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.253.197) by CO1EHSMHS032.bigfish.com (10.243.66.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:51:08 +0000
Received: from DBXPRD0611HT003.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (157.56.254.85) by pod51017.outlook.com (10.255.79.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.341.1; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:50:43 +0000
Message-ID: <020401ce8e94$2d1b7040$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>, adrian@olddog.co.uk
References: <0F35CF56-1A15-43A3-8105-6E0BB5BBE68D@edvina.net> <00e401ce8d02$56a79f80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <018f01ce8d03$37d4e300$a77ea900$@olddog.co.uk> <F4288A04-2EF8-473C-B2AC-12A43394730E@edvina.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:50:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [157.56.254.85]
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: ietfmibs@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IETFMIBS] [OPS-AREA] Updating a published MIB
X-BeenThere: ietfmibs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF MIB Discussion list <ietfmibs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietfmibs>, <mailto:ietfmibs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietfmibs>
List-Post: <mailto:ietfmibs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietfmibs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs>, <mailto:ietfmibs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:52:10 -0000

Olle

You asked whether a RFC4780-bis would be better in RAI or Ops.

I see that the underlying sipcore I-D has been rejected by the IESG with
a variety of COMMENT and DISCUSS, but I cannot see therein any reference
to this issue, of needing to update the MIB module.  Which surprises me;
I might have expected an Ops AD to pick up on this and call for a
normative reference to a RFC4780-bis.  In which case, it would be the
sipcore WG that would have the vested interest in making the RFC4780-bis
happen so that is where I would do the work, with copies to those with
additional skills in MIB modules as required.

Or the updated MIB module could go in the existing I-D, which would be
logical and make it easy to find and cut down on the paperwork and ...
lots of good things.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: "'t.petch'" <ietfc@btconnect.com>; <ops-area@ietf.org>;
<ietfmibs@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:59 PM

30 jul 2013 kl. 11:00 skrev "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>:

> [Adding ietfmibs@ietf.org]
>
> To add to Tom's mutterings...
>
> This is why we should think more often and harder about using
IANA-maintained
> TCs.

THanks you for all answers! I will read the documentes referred to and
try to make an update.
Would that be processed in OPS or RAI areas?

Regards,
/O

>
> Adrian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ops-area-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf
>> Of t.petch
>> Sent: 30 July 2013 09:54
>> To: Olle E. Johansson; ops-area@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Updating a published MIB
>>
>> You will find a three page description of what you can and cannot do
in
>> RFC4181 pp.28-31. This refers back to RFC2578 which is the
authoritative
>> statement of what can and cannot be done.  And then there is the
>> ietfmibs@ietf.org
>> mailing list which is where most of those with expertise in MIB
modules
>> lurk.
>>
>> No, it is not obvious:-(
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
>> To: <ops-area@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:52 PM
>>
>> The SIP MIB in RFC 4780 contains a SipTCTransportProtocol entry. The
>> SIPcore group is about to add another transport (websockets), which
>> means that we will have to update RFC 4780 with a new bit for
websocket
>> transports.
>>
>> I've asked around and it seems to be a lack of information about the
>> process of updating a published MIB. The IANA is not involved. And
>> reading the wiki entry on OPS and MIB doctors seems to contain a lot
of
>> information about *new* MIBs but nothing on updates.
>>
>> So my question is what the process is for changing parameters or
adding
>> new OIDs.
>>
>> Thanks for your response! Apologies if I did miss something obvious.
>>
>> /Olle

---
* Olle E Johansson - oej@edvina.net
* Cell phone +46 70 593 68 51, Office +46 8 96 40 20, Sweden