Re: [IETFMIBS] Extending InetAddress(Type) for BGP Multicast VPNs

"Joan Cucchiara" <jcucchiara@mindspring.com> Tue, 17 January 2012 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jcucchiara@mindspring.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 275DC21F86F8 for <ietfmibs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:04:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
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 b-kB0edyJzpj for <ietfmibs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C1821F86CE for <ietfmibs@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:04:23 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=Hb8ShvlafJ1q9+MHcWmTS+V3jKHm7JyNHzialOc2aMZENVZUXq2aeugAIOUM6Hr2; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [24.41.31.146] (helo=JoanPC) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>) id 1RnAaB-0007YV-Tr; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:04:19 -0500
Message-ID: <39eb01ccd529$0062c470$6601a8c0@JoanPC>
From: Joan Cucchiara <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>
To: Jeff Haas <jhaas@juniper.net>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
References: <CBFBAE7D-EFBC-4833-9DD5-C2659C00F419@juniper.net><20120109234012.GA93650@elstar.local><52539B15-9568-486D-9E04-5F753DA2BFAC@juniper.net><20120110105431.GC94367@elstar.local><4F0C35ED.8060705@innovationslab.net><28D0A91D-4C9B-4562-9495-639A38394194@juniper.net><20120110144109.GD95306@elstar.local><4DB4A319-8AA8-4510-B2A9-42A06513F1C0@juniper.net><EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0406F498A6@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <03D47A26-2966-40BB-A372-B560DAE2A57C@juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:02:15 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-ELNK-Trace: 4d68bbe9cb71969ea344cf2d1a8e60840a9da525759e2654ea830ce65b1e232620b3672795f7bd6692764449e275203c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 24.41.31.146
Cc: ietfmibs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IETFMIBS] Extending InetAddress(Type) for BGP Multicast VPNs
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: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:04:24 -0000

Jeff,

Could you remind me again what the requirements are by the the IDR WG to 
have
a document advance to RFC status?   As I recall, this is more involved than 
what is required by
other WGs.

Could you also tell us what the status is of the BGPv2 MIBs with respect to 
the
IDR WG requirements?

Thank you,
  -Joan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Haas" <jhaas@juniper.net>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Cc: <ietfmibs@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [IETFMIBS] Extending InetAddress(Type) for BGP Multicast VPNs


> Dan, Juergen, Joan,
>
> Thanks for your kind responses.
>
> On Jan 15, 2012, at 9:02 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Do you refer to the IANA maintained MIB modules listed at
> http://www.iana.org/protocols? The policy for extending each of the
> modules is defined typically in the RFC where the TC is defined. If for
> example 'Expert Review' (as the policy is for many of these) IANA passes
> the requests to the expert designated by the IESG, who is evaluating and
> advising IANA. I think that the process is well known and works pretty
> well, but other people are invited to share their experiences.
>
> This was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.  It avoids my 
> problem of a never-really-published MIB that is constantly being updated 
> for the BGP MIBv2.
>
> Joan had written earlier:
> I don't see the  point in having IANA maintain a TC-MIB, which is never 
> used
> in an
> actual RFC MIB.  While this might be easier for you, there is still work 
> by
> someone.
> Typically, the IANA considerations section that requests creating a new 
> name
> space,
> is included in a MIB document that is advancing to RFC status.   I don't
> know of  acceptions, but
> maybe someone else does?
>
> Please recall that the purpose of this is to help make the BGP MIBv2 
> (which is standards track) be more generally useful for BGP address 
> families.
>
> If your point was that an initial MIB document is required to bootstrap 
> the request for IANA to maintain a TC MIB per RFC 4181, that's 
> understandable.
>
> -- Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETFMIBS mailing list
> IETFMIBS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs