Re: [Bridge-mib] Future directions
"David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com> Fri, 02 April 2004 11:48 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA04648 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 06:48:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9JyA-00027Y-9X for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 03:24:06 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i328O60U008153 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 03:24:06 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9ECB-0008LO-6J; Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:14:11 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9CX2-0000Om-Uz for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:27:37 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13714 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 19:27:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9CX1-0001n0-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:27:35 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B9CW7-0001hB-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:26:40 -0500
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net ([209.128.82.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9CVl-0001b2-00 for Bridge-mib@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:26:17 -0500
Received: from NB5.dsperkins.com (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i320Q7120403; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:26:07 -0800
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040401160931.023555c0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: dperkins@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:25:47 -0800
To: Elisabeth Gloria <green_elisabeth@yahoo.com.au>, "Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>, Bridge-mib@ietf.org
From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Future directions
In-Reply-To: <20040401074342.51062.qmail@web13125.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6D745637A7E0F94DA070743C55CDA9BA017E1113@NHROCMBX1.ets.enterasys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <bridge-mib.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bridge-mib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
HI, DBH - In general, the IETF and the IEEE 802.1 have different approaches in what is included in technical specifications for management and the process for standardizing a technical specification. Thus, I would guess that the results from the two different groups would be quite different for the same problem. Thus, I'm not convinced that hands off by the IETF is the approach to take. EG - it concerns me when seeing the statement "These MIBs should be made obsolete by new ones." I'm not sure what you meant. If you meant to "start over", then this is a non-starter. That is, any new technical specification must include unmodified the existing definitions (where they are not technically incorrect), and add new definitions and augmentations of existing definitions. The resulting technical specification containing one of more MIB modules defining object and notification types must allow interoperation between old managers and new agents, and new managers and old agents. What did you mean? At 05:43 PM 4/1/2004 +1000, Elisabeth Gloria wrote: >David, > >I my opinion (while I am not a member of WG): > >> 1) Do you agree with having the IEEE write >> their own mibs? >Yes, I do. > >> 2) Will you participate in the IEEE 802.1 >> process for developing the mib modules? >Yes, I will as far as I can. > >> 3) Do you agree the bridgemib WG should be >> closed down, since it will >> have completed its charter? >No, I wouldn't like, see next item. > >> 4) Should they also be published as RFCs? >Yes, they should. > >> 5) Synchronization between IEEE/IETF >> review/publishing cycles has proven >> difficult, so we are considering publishing >> Informational RFCs with only >> a pointer to the IEEE standard. Would that >> suffice? >Yes, it would. > >> For existing 802.1-related MIBs (1493, 1525, 2674, >> et al): >> 6) Should these be moved to the IEEE? >Not, it is not necessarily. > >> 7) If not, why not? How should the IETF mib modules >> be maintained as the >> IEEE 802.1 technologies change? >These MIBs should be made obsolete by new ones. > >Regards, Beth Regards, /david t. perkins _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Future directions Harrington, David
- [Bridge-mib] Future directions Harrington, David
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Future directions Elisabeth Gloria
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Future directions David T. Perkins
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Future directions David T. Perkins
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Future directions Tom Petch
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Future directions Romascanu, Dan (Dan)