RE: SNMP/MIB text in draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-06.txt acceptable?

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

So, from the document:

   RFC 2012 S: "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the  Transmission
   Control Protocol using SMIv2" (November 1996)
      This document [RFC2012] defined the TCP MIB, in an update to RFC
      1213.  It is now obsoleted by RFC 4022.


   RFC 2452 S: "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
   Transmission Control Protocol" (December 1998)

      This document [RFC2452] augments RFC 2012 by adding an IPv6-
      specific connection table.  The rest of 2012 holds for any IP
      version.


      Although it is a standards track document, RFC 2452 is considered
      a historic mistake by the MIB community, as it is based on the
      idea of parallel IPv4 and IPv6 structures.  Although IPv6 requires
      new structures, the community has decided to define a single
      generic structure for both IPv4 and IPv6.  This will aid in
      definition, implementation, and transition between IPv4 and IPv6.

   RFC 4022 S: "Management Information Base for the Transmission Control
   Protocol (TCP)" (March 2005)

      This document [RFC4022] obsoletes RFC 2012 and RFC 2452, and
      specifies the current standard for the TCP MIB that should be
      deployed.

I believe that the phrase 'It is now obsoleted by RFC 4022.' should be
added to the first paragraph about RFC 2452. 

This write-up also invites the question why are [RFC 2452] and [RFC2452]
kept on the standards track and not declared Historical, especially as
2452 is declared 'a historic mistake'. I am not asking for a change in
the document on this issue, however. 

Dan

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 4:34 PM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: SNMP/MIB text in draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-06.txt 
> acceptable?
> 
> Section 6.4 has some discussion on SNMP MIB modules in the TCP space.
> 
> I wonder if we think it is worth to word-smit it a little 
> bit. I am inclined to let it go.
> 
> If anyone feels strong about changing the text AND is willing 
> to help word-smit it, pls speak up within the next 2 hours. 
> Best to come with an initial proposed text replacement in 
> that time-frame too.
> 
> Bert
> 
> 
>