Re: IPS-ALL: FC Mgmt MIB WG Last Call

[Keith McCloghrie <[e-mail]>]

Duane,

> OK, I understand that this MIB is a replacement for both draft-ietf-ipfc-
> fcmgmt-int-mib-07.txt and RFC 2837, and it appears to be an excellent
> effort  relative to these objectives and in fixing the many problems in the
> original MIBs.  But I also assume one of the priorities of this WG is to
> identify the migration path for users of the new MIB, which is why I raised
> the issue.  (I also raised the same issue back in April of this year.)
> 
> The ability to discover a management URL is important and is widely used
> today.  Can you help in bringing this requirement to the Entity MIB WG?  Or

As I indicated in my previous message, I already did what you're asking
for; I took the requirement for each of the removed objects to the
Entity MIB WG.  Some of them have since been adopted there.  For the
others, perhaps I didn't explain the requirement for them as well as
you could.  Nevertheless, I believe it will take a sustained effort to
get them not only adopted but progressed to standardization.  I'm sorry
but I don't have the time or motivation for such a sustained effort.
In contrast, you seem to be motivated; so, the question is: do you have
the time ??

Keith.

> maybe as you mention, a management MIB is a better approach - but is there
> such an effort underway?  The concept of a management URL object could
> definitely be improved on relative to "connUnitUrl", such as allowing
> multiple URL entries.
>
> Duane Baldwin
>