Generic TC Module

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

[Discussion of MIB Doctor-like issues diverted to mreview list]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Now w.r.t. the TC names [indraft-ietf-isis-wg-mib-22.txt]:
> - AdminState, can in my view best be named IsisAdminState
> 
> But I am not sure about the other 2 [Unsigned16TC and
> Unsigned8TC]. Renaming them to be Isis-prefixed would be OK.
> They are somewhat generic though, and we have allowed such
> generic names in some other MIB modules. But this is a real
> strange MIB module to have such generic TCs. If they do name
> them IsisXxxx, then of course if we ever do such TCs in a more
> generic place, then they can easily replace theirs in a later
> revision and import from our generic MIB module.
> 
> Again it seems time that we start a IANA Maintained
> GENERIC-TC-MIB module or some such, which extends RFC2579. Maybe
> we should just do a document that picks up RFC2579 MIB and then
> add a set of TCs we allready agree on, and then at the same time
> hand it over to [IANA] for further maintenenace.?

While I can see the value in a "living document" of generic TCs,
I am not sure that we would want to hand such a thing over to the
IANA, nor am I sure that they would want to take on the job.  It
seems to me that this would be a technical document rather than a
registry, and they are not really equipped to handle the
maintenance of technical documents.

The problem, of course, is that the IETF doesn't really have a
any process for publishing and maintaining living technical
documents.  Maybe this is an issue we need to raise over in newtrk.

Mike