The Managed Object Aggregation MIB
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: RFC Editor <email@example.com> Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-glenn-mo-aggr-mib-09.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'The Managed Object Aggregation MIB' <draft-glenn-mo-aggr-mib-09.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=8098&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Dan Romascanu. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-glenn-mo-aggr-mib-09.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB), the Aggregation MIB modules, for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, the Aggregation MIB modules will be used to configure a network management agent to aggregate the values of a (user) specified set of Managed Object instances and to service queries related to the aggregated Managed Object instances. Working Group Summary An earlier version of this document was discussed in the SNMPEOS Working group (several years back; the WG was closed in April 2003). The WG did not accept the document as a WG item but also seemed to have no problem if the author would go the "individual submission" route, which he has now done. Protocol Quality This MIB modules in this memo have been checked for correct SYNTAX by Bert Wijnen. They have also had a high level of MIB doctor review by Glenn Waters (former WG chair of SNMPEOS). I (Bert Wijnen) am still discussing if the fact that the document goes for Informational while the MIB modules are registered under experimental is an issue or not. I think not. Will try to conclude before IESG telechat on Dec 1st. Note to RFC Editor We had extensive discussion within the MIB doctors team about this document w.r.t. the fact that it is requesting publication as an Informational document while the MIB module is requested to be registered under the IETF Experimental OID branch. That seems to be in conflict with each other. The MIB doctors advise that the document be published as Experimental (and then assign the MIB module under the the Experimental OID branch. If that is unacceptable to the RFC-Editor and/or the author, then the MIB doctors advise that the MIB module be registered under the (enterprise specific) vendor OID branch of the authors employer. Furthermore, in the MIB modules there are still two (minor) errors that you may want to ask the author to fix: C:\bwijnen\smicng\work>smicng taggr.inc E: f(aggr.mi2), (212,21) Default value for "aggrCtlCompressionAlgorithm" must be a name and not a number *** 1 error and 0 warnings in parsing and C:\bwijnen\smicng\work>smicng aggr.inc E: f(aggr.mi2), (212,21) Default value for "aggrCtlCompressionAlgorithm" must be a name and not a number *** 1 error and 0 warnings in parsing IESG Note The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF, and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a published IETF work. This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this RFC should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information.