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

Re: abandoning ike-monitor-mib, isakmp-di-mon-mib, and monitor-mib?

About the TCs alone: as you and Mike Heard have pointed out,
ipsec-flowmon-mib-tc duplicates much of doi-tc-mib. Since the
latter is also used by the Policy MIB, I feel that it would be
better for the Flow MIB to be layered on the same set of textual

I hope that you would include the couple of TCs which the Flow
MIB needs which are missing in your draft.



On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, John Shriver wrote:

> OK, let's try and sort out the MIB issues one decision at a time.  The
> first thing is to decide if we want to abandon the original set of MIBs:
>    draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-monitor-mib-04.txt,
>    draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-di-mon-mib-05.txt, and
>    draft-ietf-ipsec-monitor-mib-06.txt
> They have never attracted much interest.  Neither of the original
> authors work in the IPsec marketplace anymore, so they can't contribute
> any implementations to get them through the standards process.  I think
> that there is only one implementation of them, ever.
> Moreover, both the ISAKMP and IKE MIB modules would require MAJOR
> rewriting to be compatible with IKE Version 2.  Like merging them, since
> the ISAKMP/IKE layering is extinct in v2.
> So, given this set of considerable problems, is there anyone who wants
> these MIBs to track the IPsec standards going forwards, and can find
> resources to update them and implement them?
> If nobody wants to do this, will we take the lack of any dissent on
> their death as "consensus" per the "IETF Process"?
> I *NEED* to know this, because there are a number of TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS
> in the doi-tc-mib that were only used by these three MIBs, and are not
> used by the IPsec flow MIB, or by the Policy MIB.  Since it looks like
> the doi-tc-mib will NOT be maintained by the IANA (no enumerations), the
> TC's have to be used in some MIB to progress through the standards
> process, so we can't stock up on "spare" TCs for possible future needs.
> So, please consider this a "last call", only for termination instead of
> promotion along the standards track.