Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends
John Shriver <jshriver+ietf@sockeye.com> Fri, 13 June 2003 19:53 UTC
Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21102 for <ipsec-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:53:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA20985 Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3EEA10F7.1070402@sockeye.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:59:19 -0400
From: John Shriver <jshriver+ietf@sockeye.com>
Organization: Sockeye Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wes Hardaker <hardaker@tislabs.com>
CC: John Shriver <jshriver+ietf@sockeye.com>, Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com>, tytso@mit.edu, angelos@cs.columbia.edu, Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "Hilarie Orman, Purple Streak Development" <hilarie@xmission.com>, Luis Sanchez <lsanchez@xapiens.com>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030606162749.04395f00@mira-sjc5-4.cisco.com> <3EE490E7.8080101@sockeye.com> <sd4r2u2b72.fsf@wanderer.hardakers.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Wes Hardaker wrote: >>>>>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:51:35 -0400, John Shriver <jshriver+ietf@sockeye.com> said: >>>>> > > John> Absolutely. The problem is that we lack a consensus on what to > John> do about Mike Heard's comments. > > I'm pretty sure I remember posting quite a few posts about it (on your > side of things). > > Also, there were a lot of other discussions (off-list) held by the MIB > experts that sided with Mike... Yes. But only a very small percentage of the WG has anything to say. Perhaps the absence of dissent counts as consensus... > > John> I suspect that nobody is implementing the related MIBs. > > The IPSEC-POLICY-MIB has already been implemented (see the net-policy > project on sourceforge for details), which does depend on your draft > to date. Specifically, I really need to know if your going to publish > a new draft or not and send it through last call. If you don't, I'll > need to remove the dependencies from the IPSEC-POLICY-MIB. > I meant the three IPSec MIB that Tim and I did. I know that the policy MIB has legs. > >>>2. We need to come to agreement on what changes are needed, that is >>>we must address the MIB doctor comments. >> > > John> Well, I can make the changes from enumerations to simple typedefs. > John> The real question is whether the IPSP folks are still interested in > John> using this MIB if it doesn't have the enumerations in it. To me, that > John> was the primary value of the MIB, and why I convinced Tim to let me do > John> it. He was just exporting the variables as INTEGERs, which I found > John> unfriendly. At least with any of the tools inheriting from the CMU > John> ones, the enumerations are much more useful. > > John> So, IPSP folks (you are on the CC: list, right?), do you still want > John> this MIB without the enumerations? If so, I'll make Mike's changes, > John> and ship it out again. > > I'd do it just because it still provides a standard convention for the > datatypes and a standard place where the documentation about them > can be listed. However, I agree it's less useful with the enums removed. > Well, I will go ahead and do those changes. I've even been working on MIBs in my paying job recently. > >>>draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-monitor-mib-04.txt, >>>draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-di-mon-mib-05.txt, and >>>draft-ietf-ipsec-monitor-mib-06.txt? >> > > John> I think we can let them die, unless someone someone is wanting them. > > I think they'd be useful, but I haven't read them recently. The > concepts in them are definitely needed and I've spoken to various > people lately about them and they agree that they'd be useful to put > into their products. However, that doesn't mean they will. > If we were to keep them alive, they would need to migrate to IKEv2, which is no small project. I don't see any point in MIB-ing IKEv1. There would need to be authors who were committed to implementing it.
- draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends Barbara Fraser
- Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman
- Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends John Shriver
- Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends Wes Hardaker
- Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends John Shriver
- Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends C. M. Heard