RE: Where to define IANAtunnelType TC

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

> The IPv6 working group is responsible for the specification and
> standardization of the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). The tunnel
> mib is in-scope for that effort, and there is a significant amount of
> text in the TC description which is the result of debate/consensus of
> the WG. The text could result in debate in the future, and the WG may
> decide it needs to be updated. If such debate does ensue, then the WG
> should moderate the debate and coordinate any changes to the
> specification. Therefore, it should remain in a document under the
> control of the WG. 
> 
> I believe the TC specification is out-of-scope for IANA, and in-scope
> for the WG.
>   

Yes the WG needs to come to consensus on the procedure/policy and then
it needs to get IETF consensus via normal IETF Last Call and IESG review
and approval.

But once we have that, we want it documented in the TC DESCRIPTION clause
to that IANA has it handy when they make the assignments. I thought we
had agreed on that quite a long time ago. Mmm.. I see that in fact we 
have it so specified in teh MIB review guidelines such that it must be
in the MODULE-IDENTITY DESCRIPTION clause, see rev 3 of mib review
guidelines, page 8, 2nd para. That is fine with me too, as long as we
keep it close to where it is handy for IANA (and others).

For other namespaces, we also often (cetrainly for newly created namespaces)
some text on the iana web page for that specific registry that speaks about
the rules for new assignments.

Bert
> dbh
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:44 PM
> To: C. M. Heard; Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Where to define IANAtunnelType TC
> 
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > > 1. I agree with Bert that the TC does not belong to
> IANAifType-MIB. 
> > > Actually the change in the model seems to be departing from 
> > > mandating the modeling of a tunnel as an interface.
> > 
> > I support putting the TC into the IANAifType-MIB.
> > 
> > As previously discussed, the reason for putting the IANAtunnelType
> TC 
> > into the IANAifType-MIB is to make it clear that new tunnel types 
> > should NOT get new ifType values but rather should be allocated new 
> > tunnel type values instead.  If both TCs are in the same MIB module 
> > then it's relatively easy to get that message across.  If they are
> in 
> > separate places then that message is likely to get lost.  As you
> know, 
> > we've had trouble with people allocating new ifType values for 
> > Ethernet interfaces despite the stated policy against that in the
> last 
> > several iterations of the EthernetLike-MIB.
> > 
> The best way to achieve proper allocation of ifTypes is to put CLEAR
> INSTRUCTIONs for IANA into the DESCRIPTION claise of the IfType TC.
> And same for tunnerType.
> 
> And as I think I have said before, if there are a few more volunteers
> for reviewing requests for assignments, by all means let me know.
> 
> Bert
> > More later if I have time.
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>