Re: [IPFIX] RFC5815 (IPFIX MIB) IANA Consideration issues

Hi Juergen,

I support the proposal.

Regards, Benoit.
> Dear all,
>
> I support Thomas' request.
>
> Currently, we have a registry at IANA at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaipfixselector-mib
>
> As you can see if you click the link, there the entire MIB module is
> maintained by IANA. This implies that if we want to add a new selector
> function, then the MIB module will be modified and implementers need replace
> older versions.
>
> This is not what was really intended by the authors of the RFC 5815 (IPFIX
> MIB). The die was rather having IANA maintain a a registry for just NUMBERS
> of selector functions that would be appended to OID ipfixSelectorFunctions,
> as it is commonly done for smi-numbers at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers
>
> So the IANA action that we need is
>
>    - remove the registry of the IPFIX-SELECTOR-MIB
>    - instead create a new entry at the smi-numbers registry
>      for the prefix ipfixSelectorFunctions
>
> There we would then add the selector functions defined in the PSAMP-MIB and
> potential further MIB modules.
>
> Please send your comments if you have questions or disagree with this
> proposal. Note that if we do so, we would need to run IETF last call for the
> PSAMP-MIB again, because this is a significant change to the document.
> My proposal would be to discuss it on the mailing list now and have a final
> discussion at the IPFIX session in Quebec.
>
> Thanks,
>
>      Juergen
>
>
>
>
> Am 29.06.11 13:58 schrieb "Thomas Dietz" unter<Thomas.Dietz@neclab.eu>:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> in the course of editing the PSAMP MIB draft we identified that the IANA
>> Considerations in RFC 5815 (the IPFIX MIB RFC) do not make sense. Putting
>> the whole IPFIX SELECTOR MIB under IANA control and creating a registry
>> hereof is not what we need here.
>>
>> I propose to change that and only put up a registry that registers the OIDs
>> of the subtrees under the ipfixSelectorFunctions OID. Each subtree -- as
>> described in the RFC -- represents a Selector Function and its parameters
>> (in a table). So the root of the subtree (i.e. its OID) has to be registered
>> in the new registry. In addition the document where this subtree is defined
>> has to be registered. The review process setup in RFC5815 can remain as it
>> is.
>>
>> Implementing this change needs -- according to our ADs -- an updated
>> RFC5815.
>>
>> Please comment on this issue. Any feedback is welcome.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix