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

Hi,

The "two implementations" rule is imposed on a case-by-case basis by the IDR WG
chairs. It is usual for protocol modifications to BFD.  I am not aware of it
being enforced for MIB modules (indeed, I am not sure what would be meant by
"two interoperating independent implementations" of a MIB module).

Let's allow the WG chairs to decide what is needed in this case.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietfmibs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietfmibs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Jeff Haas
> Sent: 17 January 2012 15:46
> To: Joan Cucchiara
> Cc: ietfmibs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IETFMIBS] Extending InetAddress(Type) for BGP Multicast VPNs
> 
> 
> On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Joan Cucchiara wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Two independent implementations.
> 
> > Could you also tell us what the status is of the BGPv2 MIBs with respect to
> > the IDR WG requirements?
> 
> Stable, but lacking implementation of the latest draft.  Juniper has an
enterprise
> MIB implementation of the older draft but I haven't had the opportunity to
> update the implementation since joining.  (MIBs get poor attention from
product
> managers in general.)  Another large vendor is rumored to have an
> implementation in progress.
> 
> I also had most of an implementation in Quagga that I have yet to complete.
The
> majority of my problem was net-snmp issues with notifications, particularly
with
> sysUpTime timestamps.
> I probably should complete that just to push the standard.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETFMIBS mailing list
> IETFMIBS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs