Re: [Tsvwg] Re: [IETFMIBS] TCP Extended Statistics MIB, and v6ops TCP/UDP Process MIB

[Anders Persson <[e-mail]>]

Matt Mathis wrote:
> If there is not a technical problem with two tables that AUGMENT the same base
> table, I strongly advocate advancing the documents separately.   ESTATS mib is
> almost ready for the RFC editor queue.  -mib-issue- is not even a WG item yet,
> and may or may not converge quickly.   I really don't want to reopen ESTATS
> mib for lots of new revisions at this time.
>
> That said, the issues raised in -mib-issue- are real.  We were aware of them
> but (mistakenly?) believed that there did not exist a standardizable OS
> independent solution.  I would like to see this work proceed, but not at the
> cost of stalling ESTATS.
>   
I agree that advancing the documents separately is best way moving 
forward. However, maintaining two separate documents might also lead to 
some objects being duplicated (i.e., creation time).

Anders 
> Thanks,
> --MM--
>
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Kristine Adamson wrote:
>
>   
>> Juergen,
>>    Sorry for the confusion.  The current draft of the TCP-ESTATS-MIB is
>> at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-mib-extension-14.txt
>>
>> The TCP/UDP Process MIB draft is at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/draft-persson-v6ops-mib-issue-01.txt
>>
>> Kristine Adamson
>> IBM z/OS Communications Server: TCP/IP Development
>> Phone: [phone]   T/L 444-7911
>> Internet e-mail:[e-mail]
>>
>>
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote on 01/12/2007
>> 08:13:50 AM:
>>
>>     
>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 06:07:43AM -0700, Kristine Adamson wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I've worked with Matt Mathis a bit on the tsvwg group's TCP Extended
>>>> Statistics MIB because I work on an IBM product's SNMP support.  As
>>>>         
>> far as
>>     
>>>> I am aware, you may have more than one "augmenting" table which
>>>>         
>> augments a
>>     
>>>> base table.  But an augmenting table can not itself be a base table. I
>>>>         
>> am
>>     
>>>> copying the MIB mailing list for any additional feedback.
>>>>
>>>> So, both the tcpEStatsConnectIdTable (from the tsvwg's TCP-ESTATS-MIB)
>>>>         
>> and
>>     
>>>> the tcpConnectionInfoTable (from the v6ops' TCP-PROC-MIB) can augment
>>>>         
>> the
>>     
>>>> tcpConnectionTable in the TCP-MIB.
>>>>
>>>> That said, maybe the TCP Creation MIB objects in the TCP-PROC-MIB's
>>>> tcpConnectionInfoTable, could be moved to one of the tables in the
>>>> TCP-ESTATS-MIB.  We will be looking into implementing the
>>>>         
>> TCP-ESTATS-MIB
>>     
>>>> in the future in order to support additional information for TCP
>>>> connections.  Since the TCP-ESTATS-MIB is in the final approval
>>>>         
>> stages,
>>     
>>>> maybe these MIB objects could be added to one of the TCP-ESTATS-MIB's
>>>> table in the future, as an updated version of the MIB module.   Or,
>>>>         
>> maybe
>>     
>>>> they should be added to the TCP-MIB's  tcpConnectionTable?
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I don't think any IETF group is working on an extended
>>>> statistics MIB module for UDP endpoints.  If we create a MIB table
>>>>         
>> with a
>>     
>>>> general name like, udpEndpointInfoTable, then you would expect that
>>>>         
>> any
>>     
>>>> other additional management data for UDP endpoints would be added to
>>>>         
>> this
>>     
>>>> table.  Instead, maybe it would be better to either add the UDP
>>>>         
>> Creation
>>     
>>>> MIB objects to the existing udpEndpointTable in the UDP-MIB, or rename
>>>>         
>> the
>>     
>>>> udpEndpointInfoTable to something more specific, like
>>>> udpEndpointCreationTable.
>>>>         
>>> It would help people like me who did not follow any of this work if
>>> you can provide us the names of the documents in question.
>>>
>>> /js
>>>
>>> --
>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder       {International|Jacobs} University Bremen
>>> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen,
>>>       
>> Germany
>>
>>     
>
>