Re: [IETFMIBS] IANA maintained MIB

Hi Dan, Juergen,

Thanks again!

I have made [what I believe to be] necessary changes as you guys suggested. I will work with Shepherd (Jeff) to progress the documents.

Thanks,
Nobo

P.S. Thanks Jeff, for initiating this thread :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:21 AM
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; Nobo Akiya (nobo); 't.petch'; 'Jeffrey Haas';
> ietfmibs@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [IETFMIBS] IANA maintained MIB
> 
> 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:ietfmibs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian
> > Farrel
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:51 PM
> > To: 'Nobo Akiya (nobo)'; 't.petch'; 'Jeffrey Haas'; ietfmibs@ietf.org
> > 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:nobo@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: 19 November 2013 21:21
> > > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 't.petch'; 'Jeffrey Haas';
> > > ietfmibs@ietf.org
> > > 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:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:31 PM
> > > > To: 't.petch'; 'Jeffrey Haas'; ietfmibs@ietf.org
> > > > 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:ietfmibs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > > t.petch
> > > > > Sent: 19 November 2013 18:19
> > > > > To: Jeffrey Haas; ietfmibs@ietf.org
> > > > > 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" <jhaas@pfrc.org>
> > > > > To: <ietfmibs@ietf.org>
> > > > > Cc: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>
> > > > > 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
> > > > > > IETFMIBS@ietf.org
> > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > IETFMIBS mailing list
> > > > > IETFMIBS@ietf.org
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IETFMIBS mailing list
> > IETFMIBS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs