[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Where to root MIB modules
Hello,
The discussion on this topic seems to have petered out with no
definite conclusion. I gave a reason to discourage WGs from
creating new IANA-maintained registries for their MIB module root
OIDs, namely that it creates extra work for the IANA and does not
offer any benefit in return. Did we come up with a convincing
reason NOT to discourage this practice?
//cmh
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > The MPLS WG has done a similar thing for a set of MPLS related MIB
> > modules, where they have:
> >
> > mplsStdMIB OBJECT IDENTIFIER
> >
> > -- This object identifier needs to be assigned by IANA.
> > -- Since mpls has been assigned an ifType of 166 we recommend
> > -- that this OID be 166 as well, e.g.
> > -- ::= { transmission 166 }
> >
> > ::= { transmission XXX } -- to be assigned by IANA
> >
> > and then they root their various MIB modules under mplsStdMIB.
> >
> > PWE3 seems to want to go down the same path.
> >
> > The question that is on the table is:
> >
> > Should we (MIB Doctors)
> > - discourage this practice (admitting that rmon and mplsStdMIB were
> > mistakes) and instead recommend to assign directly under mib-2
> > or transmission?
> > - encourage this practice because it is a good way to group
> > related modules together?
> > - just leave it to the various WGs and accept the way they choose
> > to root their MIB modules?
>
> My inclination, if I were advising a WG considering this course of
> action, would be to advise them NOT to do it, and indeed I did make
> an unsolicited suggestion to that effect to the PWE3 MIB module
> editors and chairs. The reason I did so is because as far as I can
> see one IANA-assigned MIB module root is just as good as another for
> all practical purposes, and so there is no real reason to create a
> separate registry for the PWE3 MIB modules. All it does is to
> create extra work for the IANA (since they have to maintain another
> registry), for the document editors (they have to write an IANA
> Considerations with some meat in it), and for the document reviewers
> (since they have to check that the non-vacuous IANA Considerations
> section is properly written).
>
> I would suggest that we encourage people to register their MIB
> modules under mib-2 or transmission and discourage the proliferation
> of WG-specific subtrees. We have to leave RMON and MPLS since they
> are there, but we don't have to repeat those mistakes.
>
> Mike