[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: submitted draft-ietf-eos-snmpxproto-mib-00.txt
The vendor extensions table is in there since it
was identified as a requirement. I started a
thread a while back discussing whether or not
this was a good idea, and got one response sort
of for it and one response strongly against it.
If we get rough consensus that it should not be
in there, it will be removed.
The IANASnmpExtendedProtocol is not an OID, but
rather a bitmap. Here is the skeletal definition:
SNMP-X-PROTOCOL-TC DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IANASnmpExtendedProtocol ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
From: David T. Perkins [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:31 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K32:EXCH]; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: submitted draft-ietf-eos-snmpxproto-mib-00.txt
The ability for vendors to add new PDU types (operation types) is
I believe counter to the core principle of the IETF, which is to
value interoperation above all other factors.
From a practical perspective, to add a new PDU type (operation type),
an assignment must be made from a flat name-space which is controlled
by the IETF/IANA. Thus, there is no gain from identifying such assignments
by an OID value outside the control of the IETF/IANA.
/david t. perkins
At 08:23 AM 4/18/2001 -0400, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>I just posted the -00 version of the
>"SNMP Extended Protocol MIB".
>It should be sent out soon, but here is a copy in