RE: [Entmib] Entity MIB Publication Schedule

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Tue, 04 January 2005 09:56 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27972 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 04:56:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CllHh-0007gS-UV; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:47:25 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CllFg-00073U-16 for entmib@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:45:22 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27219 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 04:45:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CllRy-0000xm-3a for entmib@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:58:05 -0500
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j049ihjw013337 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 03:44:44 -0600 (CST)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <ZXP4ND46>; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:44:42 +0100
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550604F431@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity MIB Publication Schedule
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:44:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955
Cc: "Entmib-wg \(E-mail\)" <entmib@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: entmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <entmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:entmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: entmib-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: entmib-bounces@ietf.org

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: entmib-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:entmib-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf
> Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 05:33
> To: entmib@ietf.org
> Subject: [Entmib] Entity MIB Publication Schedule
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> I intend to post an updated version of the MIB review guidelines
> shortly, and one of the normative references is the update to
> RFC2737 (currently draft-ietf-entmib-v3-05.txt).  That document is a
> normative reference because the PhysicalIndex and
> PhysicalIndexOrZero TCs have been listed (at Juergen Schoenwaelder's
> request) in Appendix B:  Commonly Used Textual Conventions.
> 
>    The following TCs are defined in ENTITY-MIB [RFC2737bis]:
> 
>    PhysicalIndex               Integer32 (1..2147483647)
>    PhysicalIndexOrZero         Integer32 (0..2147483647)
> 
> I added these in the -03 guidelines draft because 2737bis had been
> approved for publication, and I assumed that it would be done before

Not sure what you mean by "approved for publication".

During IETF Last Call a serious question (on deprecating certain objects)
came up and WG decided to take it back into the WG. So the doc has not
yet been on IESG agenda. I suspect that
- when WG agrees on new rev, I need to issue another IETF Last Call
  (so that is at least 2 weeks)
- then put it on IESG agenda (adds another 1-2 weeks), assuming no DISCUSSes
  from IESG.
- then it goes to RFC-Ed queue.

So if WG agrees REAL quick now, then they can have this potentially approved
in 4-6 weeks. The guidelines doc needs 4 week IETF Last Call, so I assume
that would also be at least 4-6 weeks before it gets approved by IESG,
so then they (theoretically) can go into RFC-Ed queue more or less at same
time.

Now... the revision 5 (current version) was posted in late october.
I think the main hold-up is the discussion on wether we should or should
not include (new) object(s) for CLEI (and similar) info or not.
And if the answer is yes... then I get the feeling (based on what I see
on the mailing list) we're still not done.

Hope this helps, Bert

> the MIB review guidelines.  I would like to leave them in, but I
> don't want to have the guidelines document be help up on account of
> delays in publishing 2737bis.
> 
> Can anybody offer an educated guess as to when 2737bis will be
> finished?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike Heard
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> Entmib@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
> 

_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
Entmib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib