Alternative procedure for updating MIB modules

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

MIB doctors. We have done this in the past with the two 
rmon MIB modules. Currently the ADSLMIB is following the 
same procedure. 

I am trying to writeup the procedure (for the IESG secretariat)
for this alternative procedure. I will discuss it in IESG also
to get IESG consensus on this procedure.

Pls check my wording below and let me know if you agree or if
you have any concerns or possibly better wording.

Thanks,
Bert 
----------------

Alternative procedure for updating MIB modules 

The normal process for updating a MIB module is to create an
internet draft that contains the new/updated MIB module.
Such an internet draft, when published as RFC, will then 
obsolete an earlier RFC. For example, RFC 2863 (IF-MIB module)
obsoletes RFC 2233.

But in some cases, there are just very small changes or additions
to a specific MIB module. It would waste a lot of pages of RFC text
if one needs to repeat the whole MIB module in order to just make
a few small changes. 

So, as an altenative procedure, one can create a short internet draft
that describes the few updates/additions to the MIB Module. The
changes to the MIB module itself can then be provided in a separate
MIB module. The way to do so is to have a ptr in the internet draft
in the form of (if your I-D is named draft-ietf-wgname-somename-nn.txt):

  For convenience, an updated MIB module containing these (changed/new) 
  objects may be found at:
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-wgname-somename-nn-modulename.mib

  Note to RFC-Editor:
       above MIB mdoule to be moved and link in this document to be
       updated to RFC-Editor location
              ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/mibs/current.mibs/ 
       when RFC-is published.

An example of a RFC that has followed this method is RFC 3273, page 6.

This procedure can also be followed if some MIB module (as published in
an RFC) has already advanced to DS or STD. The new RFC will have to
start at PS of course. By the time the new RFC comes to the same level
of standardization (certainly at STD level) it might be better to
include the full MIB module again. However, the above procedure also
works and is acceptable.