Subject: [Fwd: Issue #1 [Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "IP Forwarding Table MIB" (1/2)]]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:46:14 +0100

Contrary to what I said in the meeting 5 minutes ago, I did
look at this issue, and agreed with cmh's recommendation.
Nobody on the diffserv list responded.

   Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Issue #1 [Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "IP Forwarding Table MIB" (1/2)]
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:37:26 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Organization: IBM
To: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked]
References: <[email-masked]>

"C. M. Heard" wrote:
...
> Synopsis:  I question the appropriateness of using the DSCP field
> to represent routing policy, and I recommend replacing the
> inetCidrRouteDscp object with a more generic inetCidrRoutePolicy
> object. 

Personally, I agree. This possible usage of the DSCP is too
speculative to bless it in a MIB.

Writing as diffserv co-chair, your blind copy to the diffserv list 
was filtered as possible spam, but I have released from limbo so
we should see if there is any reaction from that community.

   Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------