Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: RFC 3419 (TC for Transport addresses)

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:11:18 +0200

I guess that 4022 COULD have used the TCs in RFC3419,
but they did use the RFC4001 TCs.

3419 says about that:

   3.1.3 INET-ADDRESS-MIB (InetAddressType, InetAddress)

   The INET-ADDRESS-MIB MIB module [RFC3291] defines the textual
   conventions InetAddressType and InetAddress to represent Internet
   network layer endpoints.  Some MIB modules use these textual
   conventions in conjunction with the InetPortNumber textual convention
   to represent Internet transport-layer endpoints.  This approach is
   fine as long as a MIB models protocols or applications that are
   specific to the Internet suite of transport protocols.  For protocols
   or applications that can potentially use other transport protocols,
   the use of the definitions contained in this memo is more
   appropriate.

So I am not sure we should make 3419 historic. In fact I think not.
Other viewpoints from any other MIB doctors?

Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Fenner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 14:53
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: Bert Wijnen; Margaret Wasserman
> Subject: Re: RFC 3419 (TC for Transport addresses)
> 
> 
> 
> >IS this document used by anything? Should it be made historic??
> 
> This question might better be asked on the [email-masked]
> list.
> 
> >The reason I assume 3419 is irrelevant is because RFC 4022 (revised
> >TCP MIB for both IPv4 and IPv6) doesn't even refer to it!
> 
> AFAIK, the TCs were meant for slightly more generic MIBs ("I am
> talking to this other endpoint over FooProto" for a protocol
> that can use UDP or TCP or raw Ethernet or ...)
> 
>   Bill
> 

_______________________________________________
MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:50:33 +0200

> Other viewpoints from any other MIB doctors?

TDomain/TAddress definitions have associated SNMP semantics. RFC 3419
was essentially written to have generic definitions for transport
addresses and this has not seen any usage within the IETF as far as I
can tell if I search for definitions that use the TransportAddress or
TransportDomain TCs directly.

The other motivation that lead to RFC 3419 was the apparent lack of
concrete TDomain/TAddress definitions for SNMP over UDP over IPv6.
Section 3.2.1 in RFC 3419 says that RFC 3419 definitions should be
used. In addition, RFC 3430 (experimental) uses RFC 3419 definitions
for SNMP over TCP (both IPv4 and IPv6).

In hindsight, I am not so sure it was worth the effort to provide
generalized TransportAddress and TransportDomain TCs. RFC 3419 kind of
carefully hides the answer to the question that pops up regularily in
various places how to do SNMP over UDP over IPv6 - a more specific
document and more traditional TDomain/TAddress definitions might have
been a more direct approach.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany