Re: next steps for the MIB drafts (was: Re: [Tsvwg] TSVWG meeting "hum" confirmations with the list)

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

The authors plans' for the UDP-Lite MIB are to make a revision along the 
lines suggested in tsvwg, to correct the UDP-Lite parts of the MIB (by end 
of April) and will issue a new draft.

We then have an agreement from a couple of people to review this and look 
at the process table issue. We'll forward comments to their and our comments to 
the list. If more people can help figure the way for the process-matching 
to take place,, we'd be delighted.

Best wishes,

Gorry & Gerrit

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Lars Eggert wrote:

> On 2007-3-28, at 22:12, ext James M. Polk wrote:
>> Additionally, the TSVWG chairs believe the 2 MIB IDs presented need to 
>> become WG items because it is the right thing to do for the community, 
>> knowing few in the WG have read them, mostly because they are not 
>> necessarily sexy/attractive subjects to everyone.
>
> I don't think adoption at this time is quite what we'd like to see happen.
>
> First, a group with energy needs to work out what the correct fix for our 
> existing MIBs (UDP, TCP, TCP-ESTATS) is. One proposal is draft- 
> persson-v6ops-mib-issue-01.txt; someone else suggested in a private 
> conversation to use IP address, protocol number and port number as an index 
> into the process/thread table to find the correct computational entity for a 
> connection.
>
> Once we know what the fix should be, we make _something_ a work item that 
> applies it to our three existing MIBs, and draft-renker-tsvwg-udplite-mib-01 
> incorporates a similar change before moving on.
>
> I'm interested to hear (1) whether this approach sounds good and (2) who 
> would be interested in being part of the "group with energy".
>
>> Does any disapprove of making either
>> 
>>         draft-renker-tsvwg-udplite-mib-01
>> or
>>         draft-persson-v6ops-mib-issue-01.txt
>> 
>> TSVWG WG items?
>
> Lars
>
>
>