Re: [802.1] P802.1b/D0

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

On the question below....
At 01:37 PM 12/23/2002 -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>
>> From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
>> To: "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
>> Cc: "Dan Romascanu (Dan) (E-mail)" <dromasca@avaya.com>; "Les Bell
>(E-mail)" <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com>
>> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 12:39 PM
>> Subject: RE: [802.1] P802.1b/D0
>...
>> If different OID values are being used for the "same" object
>> type definitions, then this is illegal, and the result is
>> non-interoperation
>...
>
>How is this any different from when we take a MIB module that's been
>under "experimental" and publish identical definitions under, for example,
>mib-2?  I don't recall seeing this line of argumentation in the course of
>the thread "What to do when moving from experimental to PS" in October.
>
>Randy
As I previously mentioned, there is a fine line. The definitions that
are in an experimental branch will most likely have their status changed
from "current" to "obsolete". The definitions under mib-2 will
have their definitions "current". And most likely there will
probably not be "no changes" during the move. The result is
different definitions using the same intrumentation.

Please note that if the definitions were under experimental and
widely deployed, then there was either:
1) a break down in the standards process,
2) a vendor (or vendors) abusing the standards process, or
3) a little of both.

And that's my opinion.

Regards,
/david t. perkins