On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 9/14/12 8:36 AM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > This approach would not require any standardization effort at all, > > just the effort to write the supplemental MIB module and to > > implement the object(s) in it. If the IETF community has low > > interest in standardizing the extension you are asking for, then > > this is probably the right way to go. > > I think that's probably the case - I haven't seen anybody else > express interest or support, although the discussion so far has > really focused on how to get it done if it's decided that it > should be. > > If this turns out to be the best option (a proprietary > supplemental MIB) it might be possible to publish it as an > individual contribution, documenting something that's out > there and deployed.
That's true. However, the person doing the work is the one who would have to decide if it's worth the effort. There is no obligation on the part of an implementor to publish proprietary MIB extensions. Being able to "just do it" and not go through any IETF or RFC Editor process hassles is one of the upsides of the proprietary MIB extension approach. //cmh _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
