RE: registration OIDs: do the values matter?

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

Oh... an idea might be that we ask IANA to assign
a 999999 under mib-2 and under experimental and that
we name it something like

  999999 -- placeholder for new modules, not a real OID branch. 

That way it is still kind of risky, but we then at least have
documented the intention of that number.

Just thinking aloud here.

I had once suggested that all MIB compilers should accept xxx
as a acceptable number... but that seems not to work.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: maandag 24 februari 2003 2:51
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: registration OIDs: do the values matter?
> 
> 
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > [On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 Andy Bierman wrote:]
> > > At 11:19 AM 2/23/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > > >> >Indeed.  And I see a couple of assignments in that 
> list that are
> > > >> >wrong and need to be corrected.  Specifically,
> > > >> >
> > > >> >SSPM-MIB:     sspmMIB               M-I     { mib-2 777 }
> > > >> >RAQMON-MIB:   raqmon                M-I     { mib-2 6889 }
> > > >> >
> > > >> >are listed in the corresponding I-Ds as
> > > >> >
> > > >> >SPM-MIB:      sspmMIB               M-I     { rmon 777 }
> > > >> >RAQMON-MIB:   raqmon                M-I     { rmon 6889 }
> > > >> 
> > > >> these MIB modules are under development and will be fixed soon.
> > > >> 
> > > >They should NEVER have had these numbers in. [Instead] 
> they should do:
> > > >
> > > >> >SPM-MIB:      sspmMIB M-I  { rmon xxx } -- to be 
> assigned by Someone
> > > >> >RAQMON-MIB:   raqmon  M-I  { rmon xxx } -- to be 
> assigned by Someone
> > > 
> > > there's a practical problem with this approach -- this is 
> illegal SMI.
> > > MIB compilers don't like it. That's why we use bogus 
> numbers instead.
> > > I usually use 999999 to make it clear the number is bogus.  Other
> > > MIB authors don't seem to do this.
> > > 
> > Not good either. It may be a tidbit more obvious ([to] MIB experts)
> > that a 99999 is probably just a placeholder. But the proper way is
> > to use something like xxxx or nnn or such.
> > Anyone who wants to compile and implement better need to go
> > [through] some manual process so it is VERY CLEAR that they are
> > taking risks and better use non-existing OIDs.
> 
> For compilation I do what Andy suggests, but I try to make sure that
> I do it in private -- in other words I try to make sure that it does
> not appear in an I-D or even in an e-mail to someone else (I have
> slipped on at least one occasion in e-mail during a MIB review).
> 
> If there is a reason to use a real OID for a document that is still
> a draft, then it might be a good idea to acquire an OID in the
> experimental branch.  We don't do that very much any more (and in
> one case it was mistakenly done for something that was intended to
> be deployed), but I think that is what the experimental branch is
> for.  I agree that OID assignments in the mgmt branch should wait
> until IESG approval.
> 
> //cmh
> 
>