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

[Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>]

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