Re: [sidr] Fwd: New Version Notification fordraft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-02.txt

"Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <> Tue, 01 November 2011 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA7A21F8EE3 for <>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 04:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.23
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qy2TFdrCgy03 for <>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 04:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1342]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2724921F8EDF for <>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 04:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1RLCbe-0003pe-6K; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:34:15 +0100
Received: from ([] helo=BWMACBOOK.local) by with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1RLCbd-0003gF-Lj; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:34:14 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:34:13 +0100
From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "t.petch" <>
References: <> <> <011c01cc986f$dc4c9520$>
In-Reply-To: <011c01cc986f$dc4c9520$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd4feb9fd0b356be1e20e4f3bf0a4b7dbb2
Cc: sidr wg list <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Fwd: New Version Notification fordraft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:34:18 -0000

On 11/1/11 9:25 AM, t.petch wrote:
> Bert
> That makes me wonder what you would regard as the base MIB for bgp4.  The idr WG
> has been updating it for over five years, and the topic surfaces occasionally on
> that list but I cannot recall anything for a year now, so what would the base
> be?
> (And yes, I like one I-D, one MIB module instead of two).
> Tom Petch

Hi Tom.
That is a question I asked myself too.

I found various troubles in the MIB module that is out a
an I-D. So I was weary about extending that one, fearing that
it may take too long to get that MIB module approved.

It is I think up to the WG to decide which one they want to
extend. It would be good if the newer module could be used, but since
it is not making progress I wonder what the status is and if the/any
WG participants actually intend to implement it.

I did send an email to Jeff Haas to ask him about the status of that
module. Sofar no response yet.

Jeff, have you seen my email?