[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