Subject: Re: disman issue REMOPS-4

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:04:42 -0400

Juergen,

>> > ipv4(3), -- ipv4 address > ipv6(4) -- ipv6 address
>>
>> This seems like yet another number space for address families, and
>> makes me wonder whether the IANA address family numbers would be
>> sufficient if dnsName were assigned a number.

>I think we should wait until we have the recommendation of the IPv6MIB
>Design Team <URL:http://www.ops.ietf.org/ipv6mib-charter.html> so that
>we do not add invent yet another way to represent addresses in MIBs.

I don't agree. I don't see a statement in their charter that MIBs under
development must
wait until the design team comes up with a recommendation before advancement.
Perhaps our area directors have made this kind of statement and I just missed
it.
The use of a TC to represent address types is not new. For example look at RFC
2561.
It introduced an IANA administered TC IANATn3270eAddrType.

It is also not clear that the design team will address use of
dns names along with ip addresses plus their current schedule
would preclude completing the remote ops MIBs within the
scheduled that our area director and working group chair wants.
Perhaps a few works from our working group chair would be in order.

Ken

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:37:29 +0200

>>>>> wkenneth  writes:

>> I think we should wait until we have the recommendation of the
>> IPv6MIB Design Team
>> <URL:http://www.ops.ietf.org/ipv6mib-charter.html> so that we do
>> not add invent yet another way to represent addresses in MIBs.

wkenneth> I don't agree. I don't see a statement in their charter that
wkenneth> MIBs under development must wait until the design team comes
wkenneth> up with a recommendation before advancement.

Right, there is no statement in the IPv6MIB Design Team charter that
MIBs under development must wait. And that is why I wrote my message
in the first place. (If there were such a statement, I would have
trusted our ADs to take care of this anyway. ;-)

wkenneth> Perhaps our area directors have made this kind of statement
wkenneth> and I just missed it.  The use of a TC to represent address
wkenneth> types is not new. For example look at RFC 2561.  It
wkenneth> introduced an IANA administered TC IANATn3270eAddrType.

I am not saying that the definitions in the ID do not work nor do I
say that this is something new. Quite the opposite. I am concerned
that many WGs do more or less the same thing in their MIBs and every
WG does it just a little bit different. And this is IMHO bad as it
increases complexity and costs in the long term.

wkenneth> It is also not clear that the design team will address use
wkenneth> of dns names along with ip addresses plus their current
wkenneth> schedule would preclude completing the remote ops MIBs
wkenneth> within the scheduled that our area director and working
wkenneth> group chair wants.

The IPv6MIB Design Team charter says that they should submit the final
document by July 30. I also expect that there will be discussions
about the proposed solution(s) in Oslo, which is roughly two weeks
from now. Also note that DNS names are covered by issue #7
<URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/ietf/ipv6mib-dt/issues.html#7>.

wkenneth> Perhaps a few works from our working group chair would be in
wkenneth> order.

Yes. And a statement from the AD responsible for the IPv6MIB Design
Team may help as well.
							Juergen
-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)