Subject: [Sip] status on the SIP MIB modules?

From: Mark Ellison <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:31:03 -0800

Hi,

What is the current status for the SIP MIB modules?

I notice that draft-ietf-sip-mib-09 is the latest revision of these 
module.  It is my understanding -09 was submitted for IESG processing 
and that the current IESG status is "revised ID needed" , as of 
2005-12-11 (see http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/).  Also, I notice that 
this matter is not on the agenda for IETF #65.

Also I have a question about the sipMethodSupportedIndex object with 
respect to IANA registrations.  In checking the IANA registry for sip 
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters)  I see a list of 
methods (e.g. ACK, BYE, CANCEL, INFO...).  I am assuming the intent is 
that SIP method names are in the IANA registry, as are SIP option tags.  
Possibly this is an area of the SIP MIB modules in need of revision?

Regards,

Mark

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:12:33 -0600

On Feb 24, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Mark Ellison wrote:

> module.  It is my understanding -09 was submitted for IESG  
> processing and that the current IESG status is "revised ID  
> needed" , as of 2005-12-11 (see http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/).   
> Also, I notice that this matter is not on the agenda for IETF #65.
>
> Also I have a question about the sipMethodSupportedIndex object  
> with respect to IANA registrations.  In checking the IANA registry  
> for sip (http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters)  I see a  
> list of methods (e.g. ACK, BYE, CANCEL, INFO...).  I am assuming  
> the intent is that SIP method names are in the IANA registry, as  
> are SIP option tags.  Possibly this is an area of the SIP MIB  
> modules in need of revision?
>
> Regards,

It appears to be suffering from a severe case of apathy.

The last email I saw on the list was last summer, which may answer  
your question about the sipMethodSupportedIndex object.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Lingle (klingle) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:07 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Wijnen, Bert
> (Bert); [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-mib-09.txt - 'MIB Doctor' review
>
> dan,
>
> jean-francois and i have discussed the issue of using method
> name as an index and, at this point, neither of us
> are against making that change.   it has the benefit of
> removing the method to identifier table and the IANA overhead
> of administering the method identifiers.   i'm going to take
> a look at the actual changes required to the mib, but don't
> believe they will be significant.
>
> if you, as our mib doctor, think this is a useful change we
> will persue it.  please let us know your opinion.
>
> thanks,
> kevin

to which Dan, as our MIB doctor, heartily agreed.

Since then, we have awaited the revised MIB document.

Interestingly enough, though the chairs and Allison discussed it in  
December, with Allison suggesting it was time to declare the document  
dead and either 1) get new editors, or 2) abandon the effort. Note  
that since then nobody has asked it about until today. This argues  
for option 2.

Seriously, is anybody actually implementing the SIP mib?

If it turns out that people really need this thing, perhaps we can  
ask Kevin either cough out the document or surrender the pen (and the  
document source) to a pinch-hitter for carrying across the finish line.

--
Dean
cochair

---

From: Mark Ellison <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:37:21 -0800

Hi Dean,

Thanks for your reply.

My understanding is another mechanism for exposing SIP statistics is
moving forward, based upon the SIPPING
draft-ietf-sipping-rtcp-summary-00 and AVT draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-03
drafts.

Maybe others on the list have considerations or concerns regarding any
added usefulness for keeping the SIP MIB modules around?

Regards,

Mark

Dean Willis wrote:

>> processing and that the current IESG status is "revised ID  needed" , 
>> as of 2005-12-11 (see http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/).   Also, I 
>> notice that this matter is not on the agenda for IETF #65.
>>
>> respect to IANA registrations.  In checking the IANA registry  for 
>> sip (http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters)  I see a  list 
>> of methods (e.g. ACK, BYE, CANCEL, INFO...).  I am assuming  the 
>> intent is that SIP method names are in the IANA registry, as  are SIP 
>> option tags.  Possibly this is an area of the SIP MIB  modules in 
>> need of revision?
>>
>> Regards,
>
>