[Hubmib] RFC 1643 to Historic?
"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Thu, 25 April 2002 03:56 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17411 for <hubmib-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:56:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA21523; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:55:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA21502 for <hubmib@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:55:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17374 for <hubmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:55:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (heard@localhost) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22643 for <hubmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:55:30 -0700 (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: shell4.bayarea.net: heard owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:55:30 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: Hubmib Mailing List <hubmib@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10204242031110.13808-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [Hubmib] RFC 1643 to Historic?
Sender: hubmib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: hubmib-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <hubmib.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org
At the IETF52 meeting the possibility of moving RFC 1643 to Historic status was discussed, as stated in the following item from the minutes: o issue on rfc1643 - 2 current versions of the Ethernet mib. - do we move it to historic, full standard? Should we put in our current draft an explanation of why there are 2 drafts. Some vendors are using rfc1643 with private mibs. To expand on this is more detail, the problem is that RFC 1643 supports only 10 Mbps Ethernet; however, because it is a full Standard while the more up-to-date documents (currently RFCs 2665 and 2668, soon to be replaced by the two drafts draft-ietf-hubmib-etherif-mib-v3-01.txt and draft-ietf-hubmib-mau-mib-v3-01.txt, respectively) are only at Proposed Standard, some vendors reportedly implement RFC 1643 plus private MIB extensions instead of the up-to-date versions of the EthernetLike-MIB and MAU-MIB. It was suggested that the WG should ask that RFC 1643 be moved to Historic status in order to provide a clear signal to vendors that the document is out-of-date. My sense is that this is the right thing to do. Are there any other opinions? Mike _______________________________________________ Hubmib mailing list Hubmib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
- [Hubmib] RFC 1643 to Historic? C. M. Heard