Subject: [manet] Question #6: SMF-MIB draft

From: Cole <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:42:39 -0500

Joe, Brian,

We got this question from Dan Romascanu, the SMF-MIB MIB-DOCTOR 
reviewer, on the SMF-MIB draft-09:

"6. This document is Experimental and the SMF-MIB is routed under the 
Experimental subtree. Will the TCs defined here be used only in 
Experimental MIB modules? If there are any chances that they will be 
needed in Standards Track MIB modules better take these out and define 
them in a separate document that defines a separate MIB module under 
mib-2, otherwise they risk to create downrefs in the future, as RFCs 
that define IMPORTed TCs must be Normative References."

Three TCs are defined within the MIB module, i.e., SmfStatus, 
SmfOpModeID and SmfRssaID.   Of the three, I would say that SmfRssaID 
should be moved to a separate IANA administered TC module as it is 
identifying approximate min-CDS algorithm definitions.  New algorithms 
would be expected to be defined and this would allow IANA to maintain 
their IDs.

I do not have a strong opinion regarding the other two:

+ If you all and the WG believe that the SmfOpModeID would continue to 
add new Op Modes, then perhaps it needs IANA management as well.

+ SmfStatus merely indicates the operational (up/down) status of the SMF 
process on given MANET router interfaces.

Please advise?

Thanks,
Bob