RE: IANA considerations requirement in "AD Review of I-Ds" (http: //w ww.ietf.org/ID-nits.html)

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.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... :-)
> 
Nope, cause we're talking about MIB modules and/or SMI, not
about the protocol to transport the data.

I do not see why RFC2578 (pages 36/37) is not good enough in
this respect. There is aso section 4 on page 16 on OID 
assignments for MIB modules.

Now... maybe you would claim that this should
have been in an IANA Considerations Section?

I guess when this document started (back as RFC1441 I think)
we did not yet have that section I believe.

> > 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.
> 
I think RFC2578 covers us and tells us what we can and cannot do.

Bert

> Thomas
>