[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IANA considerations requirement in "AD Review of I-Ds" (http: //w ww.ietf.org/ID-nits.html)
- To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Subject: Re: IANA considerations requirement in "AD Review of I-Ds" (http: //w ww.ietf.org/ID-nits.html)
- From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:49:40 -0500
- Cc: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, heard@pobox.com, iana@iana.org, iesg@ietf.org
- Delivery-date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 12:56:06 -0800
- Envelope-to: iesg-hack@psg.com
- In-reply-to: Message from "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> of "Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:37:08 +0100." <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15598977D@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
- List-help: <mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: <iesg.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg>,<mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg>,<mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Sender: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
> In any event, if you think this is needed, and if IANA agrees,
> then we may need a separate document that makes such a statement.
We just missed getting something like this into the base SNMP
documents... :-)
> But I am unaware of an existing problem here.
I think this is a case of dotting our i's and crossing our t's. It is
generally better to have things documented in case it ever becomes an
issue (like someone challenges IANA, and IANA can only say but this is
the way we have always done it). But I agree that at the moment, there
doesn't seem to be an issue in the MIB space here. OIDs seem easy
enough to get for MIBs that the desire to ask for "real" (??) ones
seems remote.
Thomas