FDDI MIB WG Reactivation

Anil Rijsinghani <anil@netcad.enet.dec.com> Mon, 26 February 1996 04:55 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05090; 25 Feb 96 23:55 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05086; 25 Feb 96 23:55 EST
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00672; 25 Feb 96 23:55 EST
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id XAA23012; Sun, 25 Feb 1996 23:35:35 -0500
Received: from mail11.digital.com by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id XAA23001; Sun, 25 Feb 1996 23:35:32 -0500
Received: from us1rmc.bb.dec.com by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA19846; Sun, 25 Feb 1996 23:26:09 -0500
Received: from netcad.enet by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA08816; Sun, 25 Feb 96 23:26:29 -0500
Message-Id: <9602260426.AA08816@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
Received: from netcad.enet; by us1rmc.enet; Sun, 25 Feb 96 23:26:47 EST
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 96 23:26:47 EST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Anil Rijsinghani <anil@netcad.enet.dec.com>
To: fddi-mib@cs.utk.edu
Cc: case@snmp.com, kostick@qsun.ho.att.com
Apparently-To: kostick@qsun.ho.att.com, case@snmp.com, fddi-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: FDDI MIB WG Reactivation


This working group is being reactivated to advance the FDDI MIB
(RFC 1512) to Draft Standard status.  Changes to the document wil be
primarily editorial in nature, to correct typos in the description of
some objects.  In addition, an SNMPv2 SMI version of the document will
be issued.  I expect the reactivation period to be fairly small, and the
work to be completed via the mailing list.  Following this message
will be two others: one on the FDDI MIB WG Charter, and another
containing the list of editorial changes to RFC 1512.

With the advancement of RFC 1512 to DS we will also need to do something
about RFC 1285, which is at PS currently.  This RFC was released at an early
stage during the standardization of ANSI SMT -- v6.2 -- which was
thereafter obsoleted by the v7.3 revision, standardized as X3.229-1994.
Accordingly I believe we need to clarify that RFC 1285 is relegated to
historical status.  (If we do this, the RFC will will still be retrievable
from the archives for the benefit of users of products which will never be
updated to the final standards; it will simply not be advanced in the
standards track.)

Please send any comments you may have on the new Internet drafts, as well
as suggestions for other corrections or changes, to this mailing list.