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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

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