RE: What to do when moving from experimental to PS

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Sorry to come back to this one, but I'd like to try us to
get to a consensus... 

First Inline comments below.

More mail to follow later

> >> Bert> If you take a look at:
> >> Bert> 
> >> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-rfc2786std-00.txt
> >> 
> >> Bert> then you can see that the author wants to keep the MIB under
> >> Bert> experimental, even when we were to approve it as PS.  I think
> >> Bert> this is wrong... but author keeps pushing back
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> Bert> Any supporters (with explanation why) for one or the other
> >> Bert> approach?
> >> 
> >> I support to move the top-level registration.
> >> 
> >> How many deployed implementations of this MIB are there? 
> How many do
> >> we expect in 3 years? If the later number is significantly 
> larger than
> >> the first one, we should just do the right thing. (And if the later
> >> number is not significantly larger, then there is probably not much
> >> value to put this on the standards track in the first place.)
> >> 
> >Difficult to say if people will actually use it 3 years from now.
> >The cable-modem industry has this MIB as "mandatory to implement" if
> >the  cable modems want to be certified, so there is very wide 
> >implementation and deployment in their industry.
> >
> >The reason I want it on the standards track is because the 
> security ADs
> >and many others tell me that this is very usefull technology. 
> >So one would expect people will adopt it and implement... but who are
> >we to predict the future.
> 
> I am divided on this issue.  On the one hand, there is the notion
> of doing the right thing wrt/ standards. On the other is the
> pragmatic concern of breaking existing implementations just to
> move the MIB root.  The reality is that some vendors will have
> to support the MIB in both MIB roots for a number of years if
> the root is moved now.  Is this better or worse than the possible
> confusion of a standards track MIB rooted under 'experiment'?
> I don't know.
> 
> There should be a high-level policy that MIBs granted a root
> assignment under experimental can never be on the standards
> track unless they are re-rooted.  Was that policy known to the
> WG when the initial submission was assigned a root?  If not,
> then they have a case for not moving the root.
> 
Difficult to say if this WG (or better individual, it was not a WG 
submission) knew. If he knew, then it should have been from reading
our SNMP related RFCs. Mike probably could have know.

But this is all water under the bridge. It is now under experimental, and
there are A LOT OF (and really a LOT) of implementations and deployed
systems in the cable world. Maybe I should check with the IPCDN WG.
I will do so.

Bert
> 
> >Bert
> >> /js
> 
> Andy
>