[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question about draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:06:53PM -0400, David B Harrington wrote:
> How about keeping the current definitions in the MAU-MIB and defining
> one more value in the MAU-MIB that says "go look at this other object
> which imports its values from an IANA MIB"? In the BRIDGE-MIB, we have
> a widely used pathcost variable that needed the range expanded, so if
> the value of the original object is 65535, then a second object with
> expanded range should be used.
Sounds like an escalation of the MIB module maintenance problem into
the wrong direction to me. My understanding is that the currently
defined OIDs just work fine and the only problem is that additions
via the RFC publication process are a pain. Correct me if I am wrong.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany