Re: [iesg-secretary #5529] Telechat agenda topic: Does an IANA maintained MIB require an

["Jacqueline Hargest" <jhargest@foretec.com>]

Your request #5529 was resolved by jhargest:

IESG: FYI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
>To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>,
>Subject: RE: Telechat agenda topic: Does an IANA maintained MIB require an

--On tirsdag, februar 18, 2003 23:07:25 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" 
<bwijnen@lucent.com> wrote:

> Some IANA maintained MIB modules (like the IANAifType-MIB)
> have been published in an an RFC (IANAifType-MIB in RFC1573).
>
> When new revisions come out (like RFC2233 and RFC2863, which
> obsolete RFC1573), the IANAifType-MIB module was dropped
> (it is kind of undoable to keep it in sync, and the module
> maitained on the IANA website is the authoritative version).
>
> So a question has now come up amon the MIB doctors if we
> should require that a IANA-maintained-MIB module-to-be
> is published in an RFC or not. We seem to have 3 options.
>
> 1. require the initial version to be in an RFC. Make sure that
>    some statement is made that the authoritative version is
>    at the IANA web pages.
> 2. require initial version to be in an I-D for normal IETF
>    approval process, but to be removed just before RFC gets
>    published. It would be replaced with a ptr to the web
>    page that contains the authoritative IANA mantained module
> 3. leave it up to a WG how to do it.
>
> I personally favor option 1.
> But the MIB doctors do not have consensus.
> A few are very vehement that option 2 is the right way.
>
> Are there IESG view/opinions on this?

If I wasn't aware of what's happening, option 2 would violate my principle 
of least surprise - having discussed a MIB for years, the RFC suddenly pops 
out with no MIB in it.

Besides, IANA web pages don't (yet) have the tradition of immutability and 
wide availability that the RFC series has.

I favor option 1.