[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Call for consensus: where to root MIB modules
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 09:32:56AM -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
> This is a call for consensus (or lack thereof) on the following change:
>
> Add to the following paragraph the sentence at the end of Section 4.5:
>
> - The value assigned to the MODULE-IDENTITY descriptor MUST be unique
> and (for IETF standards-track MIB modules) SHOULD reside under the
> mgmt subtree [RFC2578]. Most often it will be an IANA-assigned
> value directly under mib-2 [RFC2578], although for media-specific
> MIB modules that extend the IF-MIB [RFC2863] it is customary to use
> an IANA-assigned value under transmission [RFC2578]. In the past
> some IETF working groups have made their own assignments from
> subtrees delegated to them by IANA, but that practice has proven
> + problematic and is NOT RECOMMENDED. Also NOT RECOMMENDED is the
> + practice of setting up another subtree under mib-2 or tranmsission
> + for the IANA to administer, because it offers no technical
> + advantage to compensate for the increased administrative workload.
>
> Please state whether you suppose this proposed change. In the absence of
> significant positive response I shall assume that there is no consensus
> to make this change and I will take it out.
I agree that adding more IANA registrations in not really useful. I am
less sure this needs to be spelled out in the Guidelines. I am a bit
concerned that the documents just gets bigger and bigger which reduces
the likelihood that it is being read and followed.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany