draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends

Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com> Sun, 08 June 2003 02:23 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 WAA29125 for <ipsec-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA22740 Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030606162749.04395f00@mira-sjc5-4.cisco.com>
X-Sender: byfraser@mira-sjc5-4.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:30:50 -0700
To: John Shriver <jshriver+ietf@sockeye.com>
From: Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com>
Subject: draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends
Cc: tytso@mit.edu, byfraser@cisco.com, 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_39173268==_.ALT"
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

Hi John,

Ted and I have been, once again, digging back into the status of 5 of the 
MIB documents and would like to see us once and for all get these documents 
put to bed.  We've seen and read the thread concerning 
draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt. Everything seems to have come to a halt 
after Mike Heard posted his summary MIB doctor comments on April 28. This 
document is referenced in the an IPSP document so we need to somehow 
resolve the issues surrounding it,  which is why there is such a wide 
distribution on this message.  First question is, are you willing to 
continue to work on this document as the editor? Second, it seems there has 
been some difference of opinion between you and Mike. One comment made was 
that some of the difficulties arose from this document being looked at in 
isolation of the other related documents. This brings me to a question. 
Every time Ted and I have asked if anyone is implementing these MIBs, there 
has been total silence leading us to believe nobody is implementing them. 
Paul Hoffman has kindly resubmitted 
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 for us in the new format, and if he, or 
someone else is willing to take them on, we could continue to progress all 
of them.  If that's what folks want to do. On the other hand, we could also 
choose to progress only the document that Hilary's group needs and drop the 
other three due to lack of interest/implementation.  It's also fair to 
remind folks that these are all IKEv1 MIB docs.

All this boils down to the following:
1. Are you willing to continue to edit draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt?
2. We need to come to agreement on what changes are needed, that is we must 
address the MIB doctor comments.
3. Are we going to continue to support 
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? If so, who's willing to take on the 
document editor job? And, more importantly, how do we decide what changes 
are needed to them.

I feel like we're living in Ground Day with these MIB docs. We keep living 
the same thing over and over. Let's please get to the end :-)

thanks,
Barb and Ted