Subject: RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] IPV6-TC MIB and missing MODULE-IDENTITY

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:32:28 +0200

Juergens suggestion here would be less work than actually re-issuing
all MIB-RFCs and mark objects obsolete/deprecated one by one.

It still is a maintenance burdon, and we have not been good at such
things, not in SNMP/MIB space, nor in any space in the IETF I believe.
So we may wanrt/need a web page where that can be more simply kept
up to date. Maybe a (apssword protected) wiki page, so that updating
is also easy?

And even the first (or a one time) effort would probably mean a
considerable piece of work if you want to check ALL MIB modules that
we ever published in the IETF.

Juergen, the SimpelTimes once upon a time tried to keep track of
the status of all (or at least most) MIB modules in teh IETF space.
Maybe the list in the last issue could serve as a starting point for
an update?

Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:18
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); MIB Doctors (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] IPV6-TC MIB and missing MODULE-IDENTITY
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:58:31AM +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>  
> > Is there a practical way to do it, without going through the pain of
> > republishing every old RFC that contains the MIB modules to 
> be marked as
> > "obsolete" or "deprecated"? How many MIB modules are in 
> this situation
> > today? 
> 
> I do not know which modules are in this state. A more practical
> approach to deal with this issue might be to publish a document which
> says "up to now, the following MIB modules are obsolete and the
> definitions in XYZ such be marked as obsolete or deprecated" and this
> would at least give libsmi maintainers (and hopefully others) a handle
> to update the modules. Just thinking loud here.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 
> 28725 Bremen, Germany
> 

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:19:46 +0200

> Maybe the list in the last issue could serve as a starting point for

There seem to be different related issues here.

a) SimpleTimes MIB modules list: I just learned that the SimpleWeb
   contains a list which is kept up-to-date by an almost automated
   procedure (the rest is done by Aiko). It basically allows people
   to find which RFC at which status level contain management
   information.

   http://www.simpleweb.org/ietf/rfcs/

b) We do not know how many "orphaned" MIB modules we have. And yes,
   this might be difficult to find out. I talked to Aiko and depending
   on the database underlying their SimpleWeb service, it might be
   possible to get an answer with reasonable effort.

c) If we would know the list of "orphaned" MIB modules, it would be
   valuable to have an official document which (i) names them and
   (ii) explains what people should be using instead. Actually,
   the "orphaning" document should already say this (well, I
   did not find this in RFC 4293).

All this may be too much work and we can of course decide that we
accept the fact that people use definitions we (the IETF) believes
should not be used anymore.

/js

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