RE: Important question about draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> >>Or, I can edit the MIB to give every enumeration a tag for every
> >>reserved value.  Like on IpsecDoiSecProtocolId, add privateUse249(249),
> >>privateUse250(250), privateUse251(251), etc.  But I can assure you that
> >>many of the management agents out there would crash in flames if we do
> >>that.  In my experience, they are exceptionally fragile...
> > 

Well... for those TCs where the values are only 249-255 (i.e. 6 labels),
I can ahrdly see why people would have a problem with that.

> > 
> > I agree that this would not be a good idea, especially for the ones
> > that have private use ranges of 61440-65535, 65001..65535, or
> > 32768..65535.
> > 

For those it will indeed be more of an issue.
Now... for all of the ones where you talk about values around 32K or 64K,
I only se a very few (the biggest one has 30 or so) currently assigned values.
Do you expect to need thousands (or even hundreds) or private code points?
What if we were to all limit them to 6 private code points?
All of a sudden it would be much more acceptable to list them as 
privateUse249 etc, would it not?

Trying to find a good compromise here that would make everyone happy.

Bert