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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Keith McCloghrie writes:

Keith> I agree with Dave's preferences.
 
Here is what the IPv6 DT currently plans to do:

(1) Merge the IPv6 TCs into one (already done)

(2) Add clarifying text regarding the issues raised on this list,
    e.g. whether you can "share" InetAddressType (already done)

(3) Try to register DNS names as an address family with IANA
    (Bert Wijnen is figuring out how to do that)

(4) Align the InetAddressType TC so that it uses the enumerated
    numbers that are also used as IANA address family numbers
    (already done, with the exception of DNS names)

(5) Keep the INET-ADDRESS-MIB focussed on Internet addresses

(6) Write another document which defines more generic network
    addresses based on the AddressFamilyNumbers TC

The idea is that we can have two documents that are technically
aligned. MIB authors who only need to worry about Internet addresses
should use the INET-ADDRESS-MIB. MIB authors who have to worry about
more general network addresses should use the more generic (yet to be
written) MIB.

Comments?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>