Re: [IETFMIBS] Moving a MIB forward

[Jeffrey Haas <jhaas at pfrc.org>]

Thank you all for your responses.  A bulk reply follows.

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:28:30AM -0800, C. M. Heard wrote:
> [As an aside -- I didn't know that the policy applied to MIB 
> modules; I thought it was only for routing protocols, because of 
> the possibility of major disruption.  But I digress.]

I had made a generalization.  Perhaps it's an inappropriate one.  I'll
consult the chairs and the ADs.

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 08:11:11PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> If this routing area rule is just about gaining implementation
> experience, then nothing is really needed since people can root it
> wherever they want during implementation time. You need to settle on a
> common registration point once you look for interoperability outside a
> lab.

If that's generally considered acceptable for comparison purposes
(different prefix OIDs) when doing interop testing, I'm good with this
approach.

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 02:18:06PM -0800, C. M. Heard wrote:
> 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.

This is a consideration that's part of the motivation for my question.
I have an implementation written in Quagga that I'd like to send off to
them sometime shortly.  For my own testing purposes I have rooted my
implementation in my employer's experimental subtree.  Since Quagga is
an open-source project this would provide an implementation for
interoperability testing purposes hoever it would also expose a MIB
targeted for wide deployment outside of the intended mib-2 space.

If this code was released to the project, there's the likelihood that
it'll be accessed by some number of operators at the temporary OID
prefix for some time until they upgrade.  This is my motivation for
asking about early assignment.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
IETFMIBS mailing list
IETFMIBS at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs