----- Original Message ----- From: "Sheppy Reno" <[email protected]> To: "Wes Hardaker" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 7:15 PM > I'm in the position of having to go through IETF because none of the work > arounds that I proposed were acceptable for various reasons (a large part > of it boils down to manpower considerations). It seems that from > everything I've read, that updating the Host-Resources-MIB RCF itself is > the proper way to implement this -- manpower considerations aside. I > believe that this is the right way to go and another RFC said something to > the effect that once an OID is placed somewhere it can't be moved. I'd > rather not go through the process of getting it added as an augment only to > find out that RFC2790 was superseded in the next year or two and I'm unable > to get this added correctly. > > Sorry if I seem a bit dense, but RFCs relating to the ins and outs of RFC > documentation is very difficult to navigate for the uninitiated. > > As far as manpower is concerned, assuming I want to proceed with getting > RFC2790 itself updated are there steps that I can take to reduce the > overhead of others as much as possible?
Get everything perfect first time:-) With any I-D/RFC, you either get it adopted by a Working Group or you do it as an individual submission. In terms of your work, both are about equal. In terms of the work of others, the latter tends to burden some people more than the former so there is a push to use a WG. There is no WG currently in the IETF that focuses on MIBs, this, OPSAWG, is about the nearest. The key players are the WG chairs and an Area Director; the web site tells you who they are and you can see on the WG list archive what they have said lately about what and form a view as to how supportive they are. Well, ask them directly if that is your style. Look too at the WG charter "The OPSAWG will undertake only work items that are proved to have at least a reasonable level of interest from the operators and users community and have a committed number of editors and reviewers." Um. On the route of individual submission, it as an AD and a WG chair (or perhaps a former WG chair) who have a lot more work to do to push an I-D through to a standard; you would need their active support. Hence the push to use a WG - and if the WG and/or its chairs are reluctant to take it on, then the work is unlikely to happen. As you probably gather, SNMP and MIB modules are regarded somewhat as a legacy technology, Netconf/Netmod being the current incarnation. So if you were to propose the conversion of the hr MIB module to netmod, then I would expect you to see more enthusiasm; but that is, of course, a quantum leap. Tom Petch > Thanks again, > Sheppy > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
