RE: [802.1] P802.1b/D0

["Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Comments inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:rpresuhn@bmc.com]

> ...
> > I note that in their section on migrating OIDs, they do not 
> discuss SMI
> rules,
> > and since mibs are being developed, it would be good if 
> some of the CLRs
> > we use are noted, such as not having multiple OIDs for the same mib
> descriptor,
> > and conventions for creating unique descriptor names.
> ...
> 
> I don't see why they would need to replicate the SNMP SMI 
> rules.  The MIBs
> they define, simply by virtue of being MIBs, are already 
> subject to those
> rules.

I didn't say anything about replicating the SMI rules; I said they don't discuss them. I wasn't very clear on that point. I was thinking in terms of "The IETF defines a Structure of Management Information governing the use of OIDs in mib modules, and editors of IEEE mibs should be aware of the restrictions and conventions defined in the current SMI standard. The current SMI standard is SMIv2, documented in STD58 RFCs 2578, 2579, and 2580." 

> 
> I do think the analogy in the "migration" material in 12.3 
> (d) isn't quite
> right.  One
> doesn't really create "a second Object Identifiervalue to 
> identify the same
> object".
> Rather, one creates a second object whose definition is 
> identical to the
> first,
> rather like addresses in suburbs where different addresses refer to
> identical
> houses (which are nonetheless not the same house.)

Your discussion verges on the philosophical. I am more interested in providing IEEE mib developers some (pointers to) concrete guidance of mib development best practices.

> 
> Randy
> 
> 
> 
>