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

[John Shriver <jshriver+ietf@sockeye.com>]

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> John,....
> pls calm down. I think Mike is trying to do due dilligence and try
> to explain what the issues are that he sees. He then also tries to
> understand the issues from your side. Next step is to come up with
> a good solution.
> 
> The way you respond, it sounds as if the securty folk think
> "shoot the MIB doctors, we know what we want and how we want it done".
> 
> What if we NM protocol developers would say: "shoot the Security Geeks,
> we know what we want and we know how we want it done".
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 

Understood.  I'm trying to be calm, if pragmatic.

The point I'm making in the last response is that some of the MIB 
Doctors are missing the context of how and why these TC's are done this 
way.  If the MIBs that Tim and I wrote were progressing along with the 
TC MIB, this would be clearer.  But we've had to abandon that effort for 
a variety of reasons, so the TC MIB is proceeding without any local 
context, to meet the needs of other MIB projects that need these TCs. 
This makes it harder to understand them.

There was no intent to produce something ugly.  Just something practical.

I'm NOT very up on the MIB projects that are planning to use the TC MIB. 
   Perhaps the new MIBs don't need to document "on the wire" protocol 
values.  If that's the case, we can simply strike all mention of the 
private use values.  Are any of those MIB authors out there reading this 
conversation?  Could you speak up on that topic?