Hi Simon, According to SMI and MIB definition rules OIDs (actually I believe that you meant new objects) can be defined only within MIB modules.
The proposal made by Randy does what you are suggesting following the SMI MIB definition rules, by defining a minimal MIB module that augments the existing MIB module defined in RFC 2790. It's the minimal thing that I can think about, it still requires defining a MIB module in an RFC. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Simon Perreault > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Addition of Available Space to Host-Resources-MIB > > Le 2012-09-11 13:12, t.petch a écrit : > > You should look too at RFC4181 which gives the current guidelines for > > writing a MIB module, which is what you would, de facto, be doing. > > The practice has moved on and this RFC will give you some idea of what > > would be involved in making even a one word change to a MIB module > > from an earlier time:-( > > Is it really necessary to do a bis document just for adding a single > OID? Why not just define the new OID by itself and refer to the existing > RFC? > > Simon > -- > DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca > NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca > STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
