[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: augmenting std MIBs to use TransportAddress
Hi -
(I'm CC-ing the disman WG list since this thread
raises questions about RFC 3014.)
> Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030414124409.02463c48@fedex.cisco.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:04:27 -0700
> To: mreview@ops.ietf.org
> From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
> Subject: augmenting std MIBs to use TransportAddress
> Cc: kzm@cisco.com
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a couple of Cisco MIB reviews that are augmentations
> of the NOTIFICATION-LOG-MIB (RFC 3014) and SNMP-TARGET-MIB
> (RFC 3413). I'm having a little trouble interpreting sec
> 3.1.2 of RFC 3419. These augmentations are 'replacing'
> the TAddress and TDomain objects with TransportAddress
> and TransportDomain objects. The objects getting replaced:
>
> nlmLogEntry:
> nlmLogEngineTAddress TAddress
> nlmLogEngineTDomain TDomain
>
> snmpTargetAddrEntry:
> snmpTargetAddrTDomain TDomain
> snmpTargetAddrTAddress TAddress
>
> Q1) RFC 3014 seems to imply that we should use the old objects
> for existing TAddress/TDomain values and use the new objects
> for new values that TAddress/TDomain doesn't cover. I think
> this is broken. I am telling the MIB designer to let the
> new objects override the old ones if they are set, and
> use the old objects if the new ones are not set. Is this
> what the last paragraph of 3.1.2 is suggesting (and I'm
> just reading it wrong)?
I believe that paragraph is refering to the Object Indentifier
*values* defined in RFC 3419, not to the TCs. I see no reason
to replace / override the objects in 3413 or 3014, and I think
the text in 3419 confirms this belief.
> Q2) What is the IETF plan for upgrading MIBs which use the old
> TAddress/TDomain data types to use the types in RFC 3419?
I think the last paragraph in 3419 3.1.2 answers this: they
should continue to use the definitions from RFC 2579, along
with the specific object identifier values from 3419 as needed.
> thanks,
> Andy
>
>
>
Randy