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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Dan for the confirmation.

Regards, Benoit
>
> 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:*[e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] *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
>