The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] consensus to make draft-kompella-mpls-te-mib-00.txt a TEWG item?
> So, with that said - I'd like to see what the consensus of > the list is. > > Should Kireeti's draft > a) be accepted as a TE WG item at this time? > b) not be accepted as a TE WG item at this time? I think we should not accept the MIB as a TE WG item. With all that's been said in favor of Kireeti's MIB by a few, I am not convinced that a separate operationally focused MIB is required apart from the MPLS-TE-MIB. Obviously, Kireeti's MIB hasn't found multi-vendor support from folks who provide MPLS TE products. Moreover, I haven't seen much support from the operators for a 'separate MIB' besides a few. But, one thing is clear. Kireeti's MIB has some operational friendly objects (if the MIB in its entirety is operationally friendly is a subjective matter). But these objects are only a few, and can easily be incorporated into the MPLS-TE-MIB. Ron provided a concise list of these objects. The MPLS-TE-MIB is fairly matured at this time. In fact, we are planning on requesting a last call with some minor edits. I think extending the MPLS-TE-MIB for this would be the quickest path to getting a standards track MIB that finds rough consensus of the WG(s). I think it would be a waste of effort to make the TE WG undergo the process of finding such a consensus all over again, especially without earnestly exploring why the MIBs cannot or should not be merged. -arun |
|