Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 04:28:15PM +0100, Bert Wijnen (IETF): > So I had been in discussion with Jeff in order to see > if we could get the BGP4-mibv2 module in good shape. > > Below is out discussion. > > Those who are interested in this MIB module at all > may want to take a look to make sure they agree with > the changes being proposed. > > The most modules we're discussion are: > > - drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-13.txt > - drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-tc-mib-03.txt > > In fact I had below discussion on bgp4-mibv2-12.txt, > which resulted in revision 13.
I'm disappointed in the speed at which this draft has progressed. I do understand that mibs are often partially gated for/by trial implementation (or so I've been told), but I have the impression its pace is wholly due to the complexity of the proposed mib. I also feel that there is a fair amount of fluff that we find unnecessary for network management and would be better suited to a separate mib; the RIBs, for example. bgp4-mibv2 ("lite"), bgp4-ribs, etc; or some approach that would allow the necessities of peer state, nlri counts, and the like to progress without the fluff and thus be more timely. As such, I am unsure why its been brought to the sidr list, but I am hoping that no attempt will be made to add SIDR-related stuff to this mib and further delay adoption. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr