Re: The IPSEC MIB documents

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Tue, 12 August 2003 18:24 UTC

Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:07:23 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
cc: tytso@mit.edu, hilarie@xmission.com, lsanchez@xapiens.com, bwijnen@lucent.com, jshriver+ietf@sockeye.com, rks@cisco.com, byfraser@cisco.com, angelos@cs.columbia.edu, kivinen@ssh.fi
Subject: Re: The IPSEC MIB documents
In-Reply-To: <E19mbP8-0000Pw-00@think.thunk.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10308120859000.19862-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

I support this proposal.  -- cmh

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> There seems to be very little interest within the IPSEC working
> group towards completing many of the IPSEC MIB documents.  To
> that end, after consulting with the relevant wg chairs and I-D
> authors, Barbara and I propose the following path forward:
> 
> 1)  That the following I-D's be dropped as IPSEC wg work items:
> 
>         draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-monitor-mib
>         draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-di-mon-mib
>         draft-ietf-ipsec-monitor-mib
>         draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib
> 
> 2) Since the IPSP working group has an I-D (draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsec-conf-mib)
>     ready for advancement to RFC status which has a dependency on the 
>     draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib document, that this document be
>     reassigned to the IPSP working group for completion to support their
>     work.  Alternatively, the wg authors of ipsec-conf-mib may decide
>     that is more suitable to lift the necessary sections out of the
>     doi-tc-mib and simply drop it into their document.  That decision
>     should be left up to them.
> 
> 3) That the draft-ietf-ipsec-flow-montioring-mib and
>     draft-ietf-ipsec-flowmon-mib-tc documents should be modified to
>     document exactly what is currently being shipped and deployed by
>     various vendors, and then published as informational RFC's.  
> 
> In the future, there will no doubt be a need to create MIB's for IKEv2
> protocol.  It is the our opinion as working group chairs that it will
> probably be better to create a new working group to take on this task.
> Hopefully this new working group will be able to focus only on this
> task, and will be able to attract the necessary people with the
> interest, time, and expertise to craft the necessary MIB documents.
> This work might use the current IPSEC MIB documents as a base, or they
> may decide that it is better to start from a clean slate --- that
> decision should be left up a future working group.
> 
>                                         - Ted and Barbara

Re: The IPSEC MIB documents C. M. Heard