Re: Question about draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 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.

No, you are not wrong.

> On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 09:20:35PM -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
> > What would you other MIB Doctors advise in this case?
> 
> I believe that this decision at the end belongs to the WG. I think it 
> is important that the implications are brought to their attention and
> that the WG takes responsibility of the consequences. Furthermore, if 
> the WG finally decides to move things, I think it is important that 
> the updated document has clear instructions in the module that tell 
> people where definitions have moved to.
> 
> /js (who is in his "be flexible" mood today)

I'm inclined to agree with this.  So I think in my last call comments
I will concentrate on asking the WG to fully document what is being
done, and why.

Mike