[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Important question about draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt
[ iana@iana.org included on the cc: list because this ]
[ message discusses IANA considerations in the draft. ]
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, John Shriver wrote:
> I would hope that the IANA would never try and keep two files
> synchronized. As the I-D states, the itent was that the MIB would
> become THE definitive document.
If that is what is intended, then it needs to be clearly spelled out
in the IANA Considerations section. In particular, it needs to be
stated that the IANA-maintained MIB module will replace portions of
the IANA ISAKMP Identifiers registry and the IANA IKE Attributes
registry (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/isakmp-registry and
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipsec-registry respectively), and
detailed instructions on how to do this re-organization must be
provided. The only statement to this effect that is now present is
in the second paragraph of the abstract:
The MIB documented by this document will become a separate living
document maintained by the IANA, and will be the document of record
for these assignments.
and I mis-interpreted this. I thought it was referring to the
fact that the IANA-maintained MIB module (and not the RFC-to-be)
would be definitive.
BTW, the reason I said "portions of" the registries is that the
following items in the IANA ISAKMP Identifiers registry don't
have any counterpart in the proposed MIB module:
IPSEC Security Association Attribute Class
SA Life Type
Group Description
Key Length
Key Rounds
ECN Tunnel
IPSEC Labeled Domain Identifier
Likewise, the following attributes in the IANA IKE Attributes
registry don't have any counterpart in the proposed MIB module:
Attribute Class
Life Type
Key Length
Field Size
Group Order
Some things would have to be added to the MIB module in order for it
to replace the existing registries outright.
> This is certainly what has happened with the ifType MIB,
> although that was MIB-centric.
Actually, it turns out that ifType values are listed both in the SMI
Numbers registry and in the IANAifType-MIB. I believe, however,
that this postdates the existence of the IANAifType-MIB: versions
of the now-discontinued "Assigned Numbers" RFC that preceded the
first version of the IANAifType-MIB in RFC 1573 did not list the
ifType assignments. As far as I am aware, there was no IANA ifType
registry before RFC 1573.
> All programmers know that source-file synchronization is evil.
Yes, I agree with that.
Mike Heard