RE: [PWE3] Re: PW-TC-MIB and PW-MIB

I think we have sort of grand-fathered the MPLS MIB case.

I do not see why a new set of MIB modules for PW would not just follow

the recommendations of RFC4181.

Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau at cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 00:05
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: Orly Nicklass; davidz at corrigent.com; pwe3 at ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Re: PW-TC-MIB and PW-MIB

   Because it allows all of the related modules to be grouped together,
which seems to make logical sense.

    --Tom

Why?

From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau at cisco.com]

[DR] actually RFC 4181 discourages the practice of placing MIB modules under a subtree other than mib-2. See section 4.5:

- The value assigned to the MODULE-IDENTITY descriptor MUST be unique
     and (for IETF standards-track MIB modules) SHOULD reside under the
     mgmt subtree [RFC2578]. Most often it will be an IANA-assigned
     value directly under mib-2 [RFC2578], although for media-specific
     MIB modules that extend the IF-MIB [RFC2863] it is customary to use
     an IANA-assigned value under transmission [RFC2578]. In the past,
     some IETF working groups have made their own assignments from
     subtrees delegated to them by IANA, but that practice has proven
     problematic and is NOT RECOMMENDED.

    I understand; however, we chose to follow the model described for

the MPLS MIB Modules in RFC3811.

    --Tom

_______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3 at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3