Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike, 

Hmmmm ... 'a widely announced IETF last call' implies writing an I-D,
and probably making it an RFC. What would be last-calling? Do you think
that we need an official last-call? I thought that for modifying the
meta-data information for the RFCs an IESG decision would be enough.
Wound a less official question asked on the lists beyond be sufficient?
Frankly, if we go all the way and we write an I-D and make it an RFC (we
also need a volunteer for this) I would rather go all the way and make
the RFCs Historic. 

I spoke with Howard Frazier (who is chairing the IEEE 802.3.1 effort)
today. As expected he agrees with the proposal. The second phase of the
MIB revision in IEEE 802.3 is already chartered and with the exception
of the repeater and copper EFM MIB modules all the other MIB modules
will go through changes. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:09 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011
> ApprovalNotification
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Waiting until after the IETF meeting to run the proposal past the
> IESG sounds quite reasonable.
> 
> If the IESG is open to the proposal, it seems to me that a
> widely-announced IETF last-call should suffice.  My suggestion would
> be to cc: the last call announcement to the hubmib, ietfmibs,
> ops-area, and (possibly) opsawg lists (besides of course
> ietf-announce, where all such things appear).
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mike
> 
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I think that everybody who expressed opinions in this thread agreed
> with
> > your suggestion to mark the said RFCs as Obsoleted by IEEE 802.3.1
> ...
> > We also seem to agree that if possible we would do it by an IESG
> > decision, avoiding the extra cost of writing an RFC. I am not sure
> yet
> > that the IESG will accept this proposal, and I hesitate to run it in
> the
> > busy week before the IETF meeting.
> >
> > Question - do we need to run this beyond the hubmib list? A
one-slide
> > presentation in the OPSAREA meeting for example?
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:37 PM
> > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib
> > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011
> > > ApprovalNotification
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > David Harrington and Glenn Parsons both provide good reasons why
> the
> > > status of the IETF Bridge MIB modules should remain unchanged.
> > >
> > > My question, however, concerned the Ethernet-related MIB modules
in
> > > RFCs 2108, 3621, 3635, 3637, 4836, 4837, 4878, and 5066.  The
> > > situation for those is different.  New versions (rooted under
> > > different OIDs) have been published in IEEE Std 802.3.1, and the
> > > overview section of that document says that it "supersedes and
> makes
> > > obsolete" those RFCs.
> > >
> > > Mike Heard
> > >
> > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, David Harrington wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the
> IETF
> > > > Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be obsolete
> or
> > > > historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue to
be
> > > > valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF standards.
> > > >
> > > > IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in ways
> that
> > > > were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying indexes
> to
> > > > existing tables in order to support per-provider(?)
> discriminators.
> > > > IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise
> > > environments,
> > > > and many of those environments had no desire to move to the
> > > > per-provider approach that was/is important to service
providers.
> > > >
> > > > Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid
> option
> > > > addressed this difference in perspective.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose one could draw a parallel with the RADIUS/Diameter
> split
> > > and
> > > > co-existence for different environments.
> > > >
> > > > dbh
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM
> > > > > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard
> > > > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington
> > > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011
> > > > > ApprovalNotification
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue
of
> > > > > a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather
> > > > > new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when
> > > > > work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who
> > > > > wrote RFC 4663.
> > > > >
> > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for
these
> > > > > RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for which
> the
> > > > > procedure is described by an IESG statement -
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-
> > > historic.html)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks and Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:hubmib-
> [e-mail]]
> > On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM
> > > > > > To: C. M. Heard
> > > > > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011
> > > > > > ApprovalNotification
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote:
> > > > > > > Dan,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011.
> Since
> > it
> > > > > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in
RFC
> > > 2108,
> > > > > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC
4878,
> > and
> > > RFC
> > > > > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the
> meta-
> > > data
> > > > > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE
> Std
> > > > > > > 802.3.1?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this.
> Dan,
> > > do you
> > > > > > know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes
> the
> > > listed
> > > > > > RFCs with a
> > > > > > pointer to the IEEE document.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bert
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike Heard
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > > > > > >> FYI.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Dan
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM
> > > > > > >> To: [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval
> > Notification
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules
Task
> > > Force,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for
> Management
> > > > > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been
> > approved
> > > as an
> > > > > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all
> of
> > > you for
> > > > > > your work on this project.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for
> the
> > > June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in
> > > conjunction
> > > > > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV,
> to
> > > plan
> > > > > > our work for the revision project.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Howard Frazier
> > > > > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM
> > > > > > >> To: Howard Frazier
> > > > > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Hi Howard,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval
> > notification.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Congratulations!!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > >>    David
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28
> > > > > > >> To: Law, David
> > > > > > >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail];
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 17 May 2011
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> David Law
> > > > > > >> HP Ltd.
> > > > > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave
> > > > > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR
> > > > > > >> Scotland
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> cc:          Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair
> > > > > > >>          Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager
> > > > > > >>                Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards
> Publishing
> > > > > > >>          Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management
> > > Information
> > > > > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet
> > > > > > >> Dear David,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as
a
> > new
> > > > > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A
> copy
> > of
> > > the
> > > > > > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications
> > > Department.
> > > > > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of
> > > approval by
> > > > > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised,
> > > > > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will
> be
> > > > > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board
for
> > > > > > administrative withdrawal.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the
> right
> > > to
> > > > > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for
> information
> > on
> > > this
> > > > > > process:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to
> > > > > speaking with
> > > > > > your editor.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > > > >> ************************************************
> > > > > > >> Karen M. Evangelista
> > > > > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator
> > > > > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department
> > > > > > >> 445 Hoes Lane
> > > > > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA
> > > > > > >> TEL: [phone]
> > > > > > >> FAX: [phone]
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> *************************************************
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Hubmib mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Hubmib mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
> > > > >
> > > >
> >