Yet more on drraft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-08.txt

["Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>]

Digging deeper (sorry, I should done this before sending any e-mail:-(

RFC 3471 says in IANA considerations
"This document defines the following namespaces:

      o LSP Encoding Type: 8 bits
      o Switching Type: 8 bits
      o Generalized PID (G-PID): 16 bits

   All future assignments should be allocated through IETF Consensus
   action or documented in a Specification.

  LSP Encoding Type - valid value range is 1-255.  This document
   defines values 1-11.

   Switching Type - valid value range is 1-255.  This document defines
   values 1-4, 100, 150 and 200.

   Generalized PID (G-PID) - valid value range is 0-1500.  This document
   defines values 0-46."

fine no problem

Switching type

draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt adds
         51    Layer-2 Switch Capable  (L2SC)
 but makes no mention of that in IANA considerations; should it?

The MIB text cites as reference draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt which has
no IANA considerations and I cannot see adding a value; should this be
OSPF-gmpls-extensions?

And draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt says

 "Switching Type:
        Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC  Action. "

ie this is now more restrictive than RFC 3471; is this really intended?


LSP encoding type

The MIB cites
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-06.txt,
This should be -09 which says

   - LSP Encoding Type:
        12              defined in Section 3.1.1
        13              defined in Section 3.1.1
     Allocation Policy:
        [0..239]        Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC Action.

ie this is now more restrictive than RFC3471; was this intended?


Generalized PID

Same story, MIB cites draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-06.txt, which should be -09,
does add values but again is more restrictive about how the values can be
updated.

Standing back, there are these three enumerations, they will be added to over
the years, what is the right policy for updating them? Standards track, expert
review, IETF consensus?

How best to keep the MIBS in line with the I-Ds at least at initial publication,
which is the authoritative document?(define it all in the MIB:-)

Are there any more in other documents, perhaps for which no MIB yet exists? (RFC
3471 does list five sets of numbers - I have only looked at these three - and
there an awfully large number of GMPLS documents most of which I have not looked
at)