Re: draft-ops-endpoint-mib-04.txt

[Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>]

I agree with Dave's preferences.
 
Keith.

> Juergen writes:
> > How do other people on this list think about this issue?
> 
> See my opinions below...
> 
> > Keith> Given the above, I now think that InetAddressType should be
> > Keith> deleted from this MIB, and the AddressFamilyNumbers TC from
> > Keith> IANA-ADDRESS-FAMILY-NUMBERS-MIB should be IMPORTed and used
> > Keith> instead, This will promote greater consistency across IETF
> > Keith> MIBs.
> 
> I agree with Keith.  (I was one of the people who originally
> suggested this.)
> 
> > Some questions:
> > 
> > Where do you define the TCs for the various address families? Do they
> > go under IANA control as well? Or do they go into RFC(s)? 
> 
> My preference: RFCs.
> 
> > If they go
> > into RFC(s) and need additions over time, do we put them in multiple
> > modules do avoid locks on the standards track? Or do we have no locks
> > since the MIB modules only import InetAddress and not the specific
> > TCs?
> 
> Don't care.
> 
> > How do we solve the problem with non-global IPv6 addresses? Do we use
> > a 20 byte IPv6 address all the time (setting the scope identifier to
> > zero most of the time)? We currently have two IPv6 address formats to
> > work around this problem.
> 
> My preference: use a single format for all IPv6 addresses.
> (The "scope indentifier" already appears to be overloaded with
> different meanings for link-local and site-local anyway.)
> 
> > Is it likely that we can make IANA accept DNS names as an address
> > family? (Or do you not care since you dislike the concept of DNS names
> > anyway?)
> 
> My preference: it would be beneficial to make IANA accept DNS names
> as an address family.  The HostAddressType TC in the REMOPS MIBs
> (PING MIB, Traceroute MIB, etc) is another example of a TC that 
> duplicates InetAddressType and requires DNS names.
> 
> Dave Thaler
> 
>