Re: [Adslmib] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-eth-mib-06.txt

Edward Beili <EdwardB@actelis.com> Sat, 21 July 2012 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <EdwardB@actelis.com>
X-Original-To: adslmib@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: adslmib@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E7221F8575 for <adslmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.682, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NcuVWTMHpvcw for <adslmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.actelis.com (mail2.actelis.com [212.150.9.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE21021F8569 for <adslmib@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,630,1336338000"; d="scan'208,217";a="665360"
Received: from unknown (HELO il-mail07.actelis.net) ([212.150.9.1]) by mail2.actelis.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2012 00:46:07 +0300
Received: from il-mail07.actelis.net ([10.0.0.60]) by il-mail07.actelis.net ([10.0.0.60]) with mapi; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:46:06 +0300
From: Edward Beili <EdwardB@actelis.com>
To: "adslmib@ietf.org" <adslmib@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:46:04 +0300
Thread-Topic: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-eth-mib-06.txt
Thread-Index: Ac1jrONqu2LcD45WSzyuf/zZYXL0FgAIpF7QAAC+ENAAASq94AARTK9QAHT0r4AAAjh1wAASvkNgAFBEvQA=
Message-ID: <4087887712E5C648B9F72BB9D912FD4602500BB3CC5F@il-mail07.actelis.net>
References: <4FA7E57F.9030103@cisco.com> <5004A741.9070305@cisco.com> <4087887712E5C648B9F72BB9D912FD4602500BB3CA47@il-mail07.actelis.net> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0407D549EA@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <4087887712E5C648B9F72BB9D912FD4602500BB3CA4D@il-mail07.actelis.net> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0407DBDD8B@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <4087887712E5C648B9F72BB9D912FD4602500BB3CC39@il-mail07.actelis.net> <283DD79798619346BF9B17D7B5035A1901991D4E933C@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
In-Reply-To: <283DD79798619346BF9B17D7B5035A1901991D4E933C@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4087887712E5C648B9F72BB9D912FD4602500BB3CC5Filmail07act_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-eth-mib-06.txt
X-BeenThere: adslmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: ADSLMIB <adslmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/adslmib>, <mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/adslmib>
List-Post: <mailto:adslmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib>, <mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:45:10 -0000

Dear ADSL MIB workgroup members,

I would like to raise an issue in this group.

As some of you may know the IEEE 802.3.1 task force was recently formed with the intention of maintaining the Ethernet-related MIB modules. The task force has copied the relevant MIB modules developed by the IETF HUBMIB group and published it as IEEE Std 802.3.1-2011.

While processing RFC 5066 "Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interfaces MIB" the IEEE copied both EFM-CU-MIB and IF-CAP-STACK-MIB modules contained in the RFC, even though the latter MIB module is generic and not Ethernet-specific.
Recognizing the mistake, the 802.3.1 task force leadership has agreed to remove the IF-CAP-STACK-MIB from the next revision of IEEE Std 802.3.1-2011.

What is required now is for the IETF to obsolete RFC 5066 with a new RFC, which would:


a)      Let the readers to know that IEEE 802.3.1 is the new home for EFM-CU-MIB

b)      Keep IF-CAP-STACK-MIB, with some wording emphasizing the generic nature of this module.

Since HUBMIB workgroup is not active anymore I suggest to do this work in the ADSLMIB, especially taking into consideration that GBOND-MIB draft developed by this group uses IF-CAP-STACK-MIB.

Since I was the original author of RFC 5066 I would like to volunteer to be the editor of this new document.

Regards,
-E.