Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atommib-sonetaps-mib-07.txt (fwd)

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:46:24 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Michael Thatcher wrote:

> Orly raised 2 issues with the Sonet APS mib during IETF last call.
> 
> 
>      (1)
>      I noticed that the MIB is defined to be under transmission,
>      however, since it is
>      SONET related, doesn't it make more sense to put it under
>      SONET like:
>      :: ={sonetMIB XX }
>      where XX can be 4
>      instead of
>      :: = { transmission XX } ?
> 
> Placing APS-MIB under SonetMIB causes two problems.  It makes the mib
> dependant on the SonetMIB when currently there is no such dependancy.
> The value  of  XX in {SonetMIB XX} is not defined and would require
> definition in SONET-MIB or some agency to monitor/control assignment
> such that any changes to SONET-MIB does not use the value of XX.  It's
> not worth the effort.

I agree with this.  I also note that the issue of where to place the
root OID for this MIB has been discussed before in this WG -- see the
attached message for details.

(I've commented the other issue -- a request for more enum values
for apsConfigMode -- in a previous e-mail).

//cmh

Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atommib-sonetaps-mib-07.txt
From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:48:41 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 2 May 2002, Joan Cucchiara wrote:
> Minor Question on the use of the transmission
> Sub ID in the MIB.
> 
> Although the subID for this MIB is eventually
> assigned by IANA when it becomes an RFC, just
> wondering why there is the use of the transmission
> branch here? In other words, could this possibly
> end up being assigned under mib-2 branch?

What difference would that make (other than another
delay in getting this thing published)?

> To explain my question a little more, I didn't see
> any sonetAPS interface type listed in the IANAifType TC and
> so was just wondering (usually when there is an ifType
> then there is MIB under transmission branch).

This is not a hard-and-fast requirement, of course.  Here is
what http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib says:

               Quite often, a media-specific MIB's
               OID-subtree assignment within MIB-II's 'transmission'
               subtree will be the same as its ifType value.
               However, in some circumstances this will not be the
               case, and implementors must not pre-assume any
               specific relationship between ifType values and
               transmission subtree OIDs.

One could argue that transmission is the right place for the
APS-MIB, since it is (effectively) an extension of the SONET-MIB,
and the latter is registered under transmission.  For whatever it's
worth, the WIS MIB (<draft-ietf-hubmib-wis-mib-03.txt>) is also
being registered under transmission for that reason.  Neither the
APS-MIB nor ETHER-WIS gets a unique interface type because they
use the already-defined sonet(39) (and sonetPath(50), in the case
of ETHER-WIS).  I'll grant that this is a weak argument, but there
really is no strong argument for rooting a MIB module in any
particular place.

//cmh

P.S.  For another example see the IPOA-MIB.