Re: [Idr] BGP MIBv2 updates

["tom.petch" <cfinss at dial.pipex.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas at pfrc.org>
To: "tom.petch" <cfinss at dial.pipex.com>
Cc: <idr at ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP MIBv2 updates


> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:24:18PM +0100, tom.petch wrote:
> > A question; RFC4181 discourages this approach, preferring experimental
(which I
> > think inappropriate here).
>
> The exact same RFC contains a clause which is one of the motives for not
> doing experimental.
>
> :  Experience has shown that it is impractical to move objects from one
> :  subtree to another once those objects have seen large-scale use in an
> :  operational environment.  Hence any object that is targeted for
> :  deployment in an operational environment MUST NOT be registered under
> :  the experimental subtree, irrespective of the standardization status
> :  of that object.
>
> Unless I misunderstood our MIB doctor, I was encouraged to not request
> experimental allocation.
>

Yes, I agree which then leaves
- waiting until the RFC is approved
- or getting IESG permission for early allocation.

I presume this thread is part of the latter strategy but I am unclear how
successful this is, like I see no mention on the IANA website of this being an
IESG approved category (but that could just be me struggling to find anything on
the IANA website:-(

Tom Petch

>
> -- Jeff