Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-thaler-inet-tunnel-mib-00.txt

Pekka Savola writes:
> Thanks Dave.
> 
> Two very high-level comments.
> 
> An obvious oversight (or intentional one  is that I see an IANA
> registry being created, but no guidance on how new values should be
added
> to it (IETF Consensus, Standards Action, FCFS, etc.)

Actually the proposal is that the guidance be identical to that for
ifType values (anything different results in prolonging the incentive
problem that exists today).

I believe ifType is currently first-come-first-serve.

I'll put a summary of this issue shortly in a subsequent email.

> Also, it was not clear which WG you intend to run this through
officially.
> I'm assuming ifmib. (Just trying to figure out what will be the role
of
> v6ops WG in this process..)

IFMIB is concluded so that's not an official option (although I still
want any feedback from people on this list :)

As a result, in Minneapolis, the IPv6 WG accepted the document as a WG
document, just like for all the other "core" IP MIBs which don't have an
official home and which are just being updated to be version-agnostic.