On Friday, July 01, 2005 11:32:41 AM +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But this too is a change; if the people writing the IANA considerations
section had desired public review of requests, they would presumably have
used IETF consensus as the registration criteria; to
Perhaps things have settled down sufficiently for me to express an
opinion...
I am not an IANA weenie. But I think registries should register
things.
We have a decent amount of running code (for example,
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg35953.html) that
says our
Perhaps things have settled down sufficiently for me to express an
opinion...
I am not an IANA weenie. But I think registries should register
things.
We have a decent amount of running code (for example,
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg35953.html) that
says our
You won't get your silence, Spencer, but thanks for trying!
I've now scanned the document, and I have found a number of points I
disagree with; most of them have to do with the crispness of the criteria
proposed.
I think the debate we're having is a good one - it's one of those conflicts
Date:Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:32:41 +0200
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have yet to read John's draft, but there's one comment that you
made that I want to comment on.
| Summary: I think the document offers very good
I agreed with almost all of your arguments on this topic, until this:
As far as history goes, and the OID tree - do remember that the OID tree
has vendor space, in which anyone can trivially register anything.
Once there, the OID is just as good as any other OID.
The Vendor space gets used
--On fredag, juli 01, 2005 19:11:34 +0700 Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The IETF may have tried to control MIB contents using registration
control, but at that it failed miserably. That isn't surprising,
it is a tool not suited to the task.
quick reply not the only thing I
Some participants in this discussion have contributed WAY too many
times. One result is that their arguments waver between repetitive
and nonsensical.
Bob Braden
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 06:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:Keith McCloghrie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On the contrary, having vendor OID space has been a tremendous success.
OK, I didn't mean what I said in the way you clearly interpreted it.
I
Robert Elz wrote:
That one may be appropriate here. That is, I certainly believe that
2434 means verify the documentation is adequate just as John's draft
is apparently proposing. That is, for me, not a change at all.
I certainly would never have ignored a proposal to register trivial
David Hopwood wrote:
Robert Elz wrote:
That one may be appropriate here. That is, I certainly believe that
2434 means verify the documentation is adequate just as John's draft
is apparently proposing. That is, for me, not a change at all.
I certainly would never have ignored a proposal to
11 matches
Mail list logo
