Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal

[Rohit Dube <[e-mail]>]

Hi Venkata,

Ofcourse the item is being considered - we are discussing it here
right! That said, it is in the working groups interest to (a) keep
the focus on a manageable set of issues and (b) take operational
requirements into account before expanding the goals.

Don's approach is reasonable too in this regard (specify a mechanism
to extract the TLVs and Acee and I did discuss this as well) but again,
I would prefer the application that interprets the TLVs (here TE) to
specify the MIB.

Best regards,
--rohit.

PS: The TEWG lists atleast one MIB on its web page
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-mib-03.txt
    so I don't believe it to be inconceivable for the TEWG (or some other)
    to specify another for the TED.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:05:14 -0500 "Naidu, Venkata" writes:
=>Rohit,
=>
=>-> Acee and I discussed this. I would agree with you. Any OSPF-TE mib is
=>-> likely to be equally relevant to ISIS. I would prefer to not
=>-> get into specifying this here - if at all, the TEWG can specify
=>-> (perhaps they do already) the contents of the TED to be extracted
=>-> into a MIB.
=>
=> Please give consideration - after all are we discussing OSPF WG charter.
=> Please talk to TEWG chairs and discuss all the possibilities.
=>
=> OSPF-TE is given to OSPF-WG, but OSPF diff extensions (as far as
=> I know, Francois is pretty confident with the recent LOM/BC
=> related IGPs update). So, coordinate with TEWG chairs, if
=> they don't have any agenda related to OSPF-TE MIB and/or OSPF-Diff-TE
=> MIBs in their charter, then discuss which is the better WG to have
=> such drafts. May be single draft will suffice for all the OSPF TE
=> related MIBs (OSPF-TE, OSPF-Diff-TE, OSPF-GMPLS, OSPF-FA LSPs etc).
=>
=> As far as I know, TEWG works for requirements and they don't
=> have any such charter for protocol related MIBs.
=>
=>--
=>Venkata.
___