[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-flow-monitoring-mib-00.txt



   From: Tim Jenkins <tjenkins@TimeStep.com>
   Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 15:03:01 -0500

   First, there was concern that the WG should even be doing an application
   specific MIB for IPsec. I believe there was a vote, but unfortunately, I
   can't remember the exact question that Ted asked, but I believe there was no
   clear consensus on whatever it was.

   Therefore, before I make further comments on this document, I'd like to
   re-open the question (Ted, stop me if I shouldn't be doing this).

At the IPSEC working group meeting, I performed a straw poll which asked
if there was interest to pursue this specific draft; but it's fair game
to re-ask the question on the mailing list, especially given the general
nature of the question you asked:

   Should the WG be developing a VPN/Remote Access application-specific MIB for
   IPsec? (I choose VPN/remote access since they seem to be the primary
   applications for IPsec and they're the primary focus of this document, and
   also of the one I presented over a year ago.)

My personal (without my wg chair hat on) take on it is that as natural
extension of the MIB work that we are doing, that it would be a good and
useful thing for us to pursue.  I do share your concern that if we do
pursue this, they should as much as possible be in harmony with the rest
of the MIBs being produced by this working group.

At the same time, though, we should try to let this work move forward as
quickly as possible; this means that folks who have an interest in these
MIB's (which should include developers from just about every single
company that's making a IPSEC product), should be encouraged to look at
and comment on the documents as soon as possible.

							- Ted


References: