Re: [IETFMIBS] Moving a MIB forward

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

Sure. My recommendation was based on the fact that I do not have
information that says that the interoperability testing happens in
strictly isolated labs conditions. 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard at pobox.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 12:18 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Jeffrey Haas
> Cc: IETFMIBS
> Subject: Re: [IETFMIBS] Moving a MIB forward
> 
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > You can check interoperability of implementations without 
> rooting your 
> > MIB modules under mib-2 at this stage. You can use any private 
> > enterprise space under the root of one of the vendors who 
> are involved 
> > for this purpose, or you can ask for a private enterprise 
> number for 
> > idr (but make sure it's clearly documented as a private space for 
> > testing interoperability). An experimental number is less advisable 
> > for the reasons explained in RFC4181.
> 
> Hmm, I wrote that part of RFC4181, and as far as I can see, 
> it doesn't say that there is anything wrong with using an 
> experimental number for __experimental__ purposes.  What it 
> does says is:
> 
>    [A]ny 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.
> 
> From this perspective, there is no difference between a 
> private enterprise number assigned to idr for experimental 
> purposes and an experimental number assigned to idr.  Either 
> one is OK for use in the lab, and neither one is appropriate 
> for operational deployment.
> 
> Mike
> 
_______________________________________________
IETFMIBS mailing list
IETFMIBS at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs