[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends
- To: John Shriver <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt and friends
- From: Wes Hardaker <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:29:05 -0700
- Cc: Barbara Fraser <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Bert Wijnen <email@example.com>, "Hilarie Orman, Purple Streak Development" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Luis Sanchez <email@example.com>, "C. M. Heard" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Russ Housley <email@example.com>, Paul Hoffman / VPNC <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <3EE490E7.firstname.lastname@example.org> (John Shriver's message of "Mon,09 Jun 2003 09:51:35 -0400")
- Organization: Network Associates Laboratories
- References: <email@example.com><3EE490E7.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
- User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.5 (brussels sprouts, linux)
>>>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:51:35 -0400, John Shriver <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
John> Absolutely. The problem is that we lack a consensus on what to
John> do about Mike Heard's comments.
I'm pretty sure I remember posting quite a few posts about it (on your
side of things).
Also, there were a lot of other discussions (off-list) held by the MIB
experts that sided with Mike...
John> I suspect that nobody is implementing the related MIBs.
The IPSEC-POLICY-MIB has already been implemented (see the net-policy
project on sourceforge for details), which does depend on your draft
to date. Specifically, I really need to know if your going to publish
a new draft or not and send it through last call. If you don't, I'll
need to remove the dependencies from the IPSEC-POLICY-MIB.
>> 2. We need to come to agreement on what changes are needed, that is
>> we must address the MIB doctor comments.
John> Well, I can make the changes from enumerations to simple typedefs.
John> The real question is whether the IPSP folks are still interested in
John> using this MIB if it doesn't have the enumerations in it. To me, that
John> was the primary value of the MIB, and why I convinced Tim to let me do
John> it. He was just exporting the variables as INTEGERs, which I found
John> unfriendly. At least with any of the tools inheriting from the CMU
John> ones, the enumerations are much more useful.
John> So, IPSP folks (you are on the CC: list, right?), do you still want
John> this MIB without the enumerations? If so, I'll make Mike's changes,
John> and ship it out again.
I'd do it just because it still provides a standard convention for the
datatypes and a standard place where the documentation about them
can be listed. However, I agree it's less useful with the enums removed.
>> draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-di-mon-mib-05.txt, and
John> I think we can let them die, unless someone someone is wanting them.
I think they'd be useful, but I haven't read them recently. The
concepts in them are definitely needed and I've spoken to various
people lately about them and they agree that they'd be useful to put
into their products. However, that doesn't mean they will.
Network Associates Laboratories