Fw: MIB Dr. Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

[<jcucchiara@mindspring.com>]

Hello Everyone,

Just wanted to bring up the subject of placement for
deprecated objects.  This is no current guideline and
it appears as though, one of the ADs has been advised
several times to put deprecated objects at the end of the
MIB Module.

I'd like to reach a consensus on this and perhaps create
a MIB guideline.   The outcome is basically the same for the
MIB Module (assuming MIB tools do the right thing) but when reading
the MIB Module, there are certainly implications when putting objects
near the end of the module.  In my experience, deprecated objects
are usually implemented,  because customers want them.

Any thoughts here?   If there is no strong interest and both ways
are acceptable, that would be good to know also.

Thanks,
  Joan


----- Original Message -----
From: <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>
To: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>; <Kalyan.Tata@nokia.com>
Cc: <dromasca@avaya.com>; <vrrp@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: MIB Dr. Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>
> To: <Kalyan.Tata@nokia.com>
> Cc: <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>; <dromasca@avaya.com>; <vrrp@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:40 AM
> Subject: RE: MIB Dr. Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt
>
> Hi Bill,
>
>
> >
> > >5) I consulted with other MIB Doctors and the rough consensus was to
> > >leave deprected objects where they are in the MIB, even though they are
> > >deprecated but to make it very obvious that they are deprected.
> >
> > As Kaylan mentions, in my AD + RFC4181 review I suggested moving
> > these, based on having received the same suggestion when we did
> > RFC 4293, 4113, 4022.  I thought that was the accepted procedure
> > (it made sense to me, since we want a new MIB user to see and use
> > the current objects before the deprecated ones).
> >
>
>
> Yes, there does seem to be 2 ways deprecated objects are handled
> (i.e., leave the deprecated objects in place or move them to the end
> of the MIB Module).  My motivation for consulting the
> other MIB Drs was to see if there was a recommended way of
> handling deprecated objects.
>
> The MIB Drs. that commented on my question seemed to prefer leaving the
> deprecated objects where they were.  This is also my preference because
> deprecated
> objects are often still wanted by the customers and thus, agent
> developers implement them for some length of time.  The IP-MIB (RFC 4293)
> is an example of where deprecated objects continue to be implemented
> (at least in my experience, others may have a different experience).
>
> So, how best to bring closure to this issue for this MIB Module?
> Certainly, the document may proceed with the deprecated objects
> where they are.  I will revisit the issue with the MIB Drs. and hopefully
> this will result in a new guideline.
>
>
> Thanks,
>   -Joan
>
>
>
>
>
> >   Bill
>