Re: What to do when moving from experimental to PS

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> MIB reviewers/doctors:
> 
> If you take a look at:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-rfc2786std-00.txt
> 
> then you can see that the author wants to keep the MIB under
> experimental, even when we were to approve it as PS.
> I think this is wrong... but author keeps pushing back

I agree that this would be wrong.  RFC 2578 unambigously requires that
modules be moved away from the experimental subtree when they enter the
standards track.  This is spelled out in Section 4, "Naming Hierarchy":

   The mgmt(2) subtree is used to identify "standard" objects.

   The experimental(3) subtree is used to identify objects being
   designed by working groups of the IETF.  If an information module
   produced by a working group becomes a "standard" information module,
   then at the very beginning of its entry onto the Internet standards
   track, the objects are moved under the mgmt(2) subtree.

I think this passage makes it clear that the experimental subtree was
intended to be a "playpen" and that MIBs intended for operational
deployment are supposed to be registered under the mgmt tree (typically,
under mib-2).

Mike Heard