RE: guidelines section 4.5 (WG-assigned OIDs vs IANA-assigned OIDs)

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

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 11 februari 2003 22:14
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: guidelines section 4.5 (WG-assigned OIDs vs IANA-assigned
> OIDs)
> 
> 
> [ in reply to comments/review 
> <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt> ]
> 
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > - sect 4.5
> >   last sentence of 3rd bullet....
> >   are we sure we agree? I have seen trouble with that, even
> >   for the RMON MIB space... I cought it in time before
> >   we published an RFC, but... 
> >   Should we at least ask that such registrations are 
> >   administered by IANA. SO the WG can make them but should 
> >   get them recorded and documented in the IANA registry.
> >   That way... when say 10 years from now, someone wants to
> >   add something, they have a central place to check as to
> >   what actually has been assigned and what numbers are still
> >   available.
> 
> Let me reproduce the controversial sentence here:
> 
>      It is also acceptable for a working group
>      to make its own assignments from a subtree
>      delegated to it by IANA, provided that adequate
>      controls are in place to ensure that such
>      assignments are unique.
> 
And so it does try to make sure that "adequate controls
are in plcase". But stating this may in fact encourage other
WGs do try and go down this path. I do not like it... I see
to many risks... specifically in the long run.

> I put this in because it was my understanding that (a) the RMON
> WG actually does this and (b) they find the practice advantageous
> because assignments can for practical purposes be considered
> finalized once a document is approved, which often precedes
> RFC publication (and thus IANA assignment) by several months.
> 
And I think that is unfair compared to what other WGs get.
Now formally, when the IESG approves a document, the IANA
can actually make the assignment at that point. I know that
in many cases such only happens later, much closer to the
actual publication of the RFC.

> I guess we ought to put the question to the list, and in
> particular we ought to see what Andy has to say.
> 
Yep, that would be good. To hear everyones opinion.

> In one recent case that arose in the Hub MIB WG, I (speaking
> as a WG member, not as a MIB reviewer) asked the authors of
> the POWER-ETHERNET-MIB to use an IANA-assigned top-level OID
> instead of picking an unused OID under dot3.  I did so because
> the WG didn't have a registry arrangement to ensure that there
> would be no conflicting assignments in the future.
> 
> Any other opinions?
> 
I can kind of live with a WG having control... but I would
like to see them make an effort to ask IANA to show the
registrations in their registry. And it would actually be
good if WGs do not make assignments at the very early stages
of an I-D. Maybe at or after WG Last Call has successfully
completed.

That is my (personal) opinion.

Bert
> Mike
> 
>