IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Tue, 09 July 2013 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A9121F9EFF; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id glH3UsjyPtjJ; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2EB721F8529; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AukKAAH/ZlHGmAcV/2dsb2JhbABGCoJCIyE2uRYBgUWGbIEHFnSCHwEBAQEDEhtHBRACAQgNAQMEAQELHQcyFAkIAgQBDQUIGodyAQugPIxnkCUXjVMHBAaBASYLBgGCYGEDmCOFBopogwuBagkXHg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,456,1363147200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="18817808"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2013 13:24:01 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2013 13:22:20 -0400
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.11]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:23:59 -0400
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MIB-DOCTORS] LISP-MIB: mib-2 versus experimental assignment
Thread-Index: AQHOfKfAg4he9+TlQkC2lGdNBVXZOZlcmGUg
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:23:59 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128647C5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <51DC0C39.4060606@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51DC0C39.4060606@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128647C5AZFFEXMB04globa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] LISP-MIB: mib-2 versus experimental assignment
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB Doctors list <mib-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mib-doctors>
List-Post: <mailto:mib-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:24:09 -0000

Hi,

I would be inclined also to make the assignment under mib-2. The text in 4181 indicates that assigning under experimental is recommended only for limited experiments, with no predicted deployment in the Internet. This does not seem to be the case with LISP.

Regards,

Dan



From: mib-doctors-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mib-doctors-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 4:12 PM
To: MIB Doctors (E-mail)
Cc: IESG IESG
Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] LISP-MIB: mib-2 versus experimental assignment

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email