Re: HIP BOF Review

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

Sorry, my point was that one would expect that an experimental protocol
would undergo substantial changes due to the experiments, thus a MIB would
be premature since it might be expected to undergo substantial changes prior
to finalization. The comment was not meant to be a disparagement of doing a
MIB per se. Of course, management is certainly a concern with something like
HIP, that requires a big change in the architecture, so thinking about
operations and management is certainly important indeed critical. However,
I'd expect that to be expressed as a charter item that specifically mentions
figuring out the best operations and management approach, which might
include a MIB when the protocol is finalized, but also might require other
measures.

Hope that's clearer.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; <iab@iab.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: HIP BOF Review


> tangential:
>
> --On 10. november 2003 12:37 -0800 James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
> wrote:
>
> > and
> > there were some indications in the proposed charter that, deep down, the
> > HIP guys really think it should be standards track (like the inclusion
of
> > a MIB).
>
> if a MIB makes sense and is useful on its own, why should the inclusion of
> a MIB be indication that it wants to be standards track?
> if a MIB doesn't make sense and is useful, why on Earth are we pushing for
> protocols to have MIBs?
>
> ie I certainly hope that the reason is that there's someone in the design
> team who thinks that MIBs are useful for HIP than them wanting standards
> track status.
>
>                       Harald
>
>
>