Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-19: (with DISCUSS)

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Thu, 16 June 2011 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 7BE3011E80EC for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TG3ct3zUskNv for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00FF11E8100 for <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249F120C49; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:33:43 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OLg7EtC58sXz; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:33:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC4B20BEF; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:33:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 288C4190BCE3; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:33:34 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:33:34 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Joan Cucchiara <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20110616133334.GA40454@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Joan Cucchiara <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, adrian@olddog.co.uk, mib-doctors@ietf.org
References: <20110613154515.9789.80386.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <142d01cc2bd6$abfa3900$03eeab00$@olddog.co.uk> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04033FD7C8@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <20110616122413.GB40130@elstar.local> <003701cc2c28$eabcd6a0$6501a8c0@JoanPC>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <003701cc2c28$eabcd6a0$6501a8c0@JoanPC>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: mib-doctors@ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-19: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:33:44 -0000

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:25:52AM -0400, Joan Cucchiara wrote:
 
> Perhaps, I am incorrect as a MIB Dr to allow the REVISIONS clause to
> remain in during
> the draft revision process, but find that the authors see this as
> conflicting
> requirements, (remove it, then adding it back during RFC editing).
> Mostly, I think  that
> the REVISIONS clause has made it into someone's template so it
> exists more and more, often
> from the beginning.

RFC 4181:

   While a MIB module is under development, the RFC number in which it
   will eventually be published is usually unknown and must be filled in
   by the RFC Editor prior to publication.  An appropriate form for the
   REVISION clause applying to a version under development would be
   something along the following lines:

          REVISION    "200212132358Z"  -- December 13, 2002
          DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published as RFC yyyy."
   -- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
 
> At any rate, I do see that this happens, i.e.  both of the clauses
> (LAST-UPDATED and REVISIONS) are not
> updated from one draft revision to the next (particularly before the
> draft comes under MIB Dr. review) ,
> which I agree is a problem (and not sure how to solve).   However,
> most developers that decide to
> implement a draft add in the title of the draft in a MIB Comment, so
> they do document which
> specific version of a draft they are implementing.

I-D implementation is fine and welcome, shipping I-D implementations
in production code is not so welcome. Note that MIB modules in I-Ds
usually do not have assigned OIDs so a vendor has to root the module
in his private OID space and hence there is not really a problem
(especially if the vendor ACME at the same time renames FOO-MIB to
ACME-FOO-MIB).

That said, it is good practice to check during MIB review that the
dates are reasonable and consistent.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>