Hi Juergen. Thanks for bringing up this topic!
> OLD > Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 > nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only > possible way of controlling these nodes. > NEW > IPv6 nodes may support network management via the Simple Network > Management Protocol version 3 (SNMPv3) [RFC3411]. For IPv6 nodes > that are embedded devices, network management via SNMPv3 may be the > only possible way of controlling these nodes. > Rationale: > I think it is important to provide a explicit references to SNMPv3 > to make it clear that SNMPv3 is the SNMP version to be > implemented. I'm fine with the reference to SNMPv3. But, is that last sentence really accurate? Are embedded devices typically or normally managed via SNMP? And is there even a generally accepted definition of what an embedded device is? Is it the same as, say, a network appliance? > OLD > IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that > support an SNMP agent. > NEW > The IP-FORWARD-MIB module [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that > support an SNMP agent. > Rationale > I believe it is clearer to list the MIB module name instead of a > paraphrase of the respective RFC title. Agreed. But thinking a bit, should we even go so far as saying SHOULD for the two above MIBs when SNMP is implemented? The reason I ask is that a year or two ago, when I looked into the question of what MIBs to implement for hosts, my conclusion was that MIBs aren't really used in the host/server space much. They are clearly used for monitoring (but not necessarily configuration) in routers. I guess I'm asking should we give the same recomendation for all devices, or should the recommendation for routers be different from that of hosts? > OLD > IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP > agent. > NEW > The IP-MIB module [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that > support an SNMP agent. Implementation of the IPv6-MIB module > [RFC2465] is only recommended for backward compatibility reasons > since [RFC2465] has been obsoleted by [RFC4293]. > Rationale: > I believe it is clearer to list the MIB module name instead of a > paraphrase of the respective RFC title. The second sentence should > take care of ongoing confusion where people think they should > implement the IPV6-MIB module for IPv6 nodes. Agreed. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
