[MIB-DOCTORS] LISP-MIB: mib-2 versus experimental assignment

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear MIB-doctors,

I would need your advice, regarding the mib2 versus experimental assignment.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-mib-11 intended status is 
experimental.
Therefore, it looks logical to assign the OIDs under the experimental tree.
However, reviewing RFC 4181 section 4.3

        RFC 2578 Section 4  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2578#section-4>  describes the object identifier subtrees that are
        maintained by IANA and specifies the usages for those subtrees.  In
        particular, the mgmt subtree { iso 3 6 1 2 } is used to identify IETF
        "standard" objects, while the experimental subtree { iso 3 6 1 3 } is
        used to identify objects that are under development in the IETF.  It
        is REQUIRED that objects be moved from the experimental subtree to
        the mgmt subtree when a MIB module enters the IETF standards track.

        Experience has shown that it is impractical to move objects from one
        subtree to another once those objects have seen large-scale use in an
        operational environment.  Hence any object that is targeted for
        deployment in an operational environment MUST NOT be registered under
        the experimental subtree, irrespective of the standardization status
        of that object.  The experimental subtree should be used only for
        objects that are intended for limited experimental deployment.  Such
        objects typically are defined in Experimental RFCs.

If I would ask the author "are you targeting deployment in an 
operational environment?", I'm sure the answer would be yes. On the 
other side, most of the LISP 6 RFCs have an experimental intended status

Where do we draw the line?
 From what I can see on google, LISP is actually deployed today. 
Therefore, I'm inclined to keep draft-ietf-lisp-mib-11 under mib-2 as 
this stage, just in case this MIB is actually used in production networks.

Regards, Benoit