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

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Tue, 19 July 2011 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8DD21F87C5 for <hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rRoisjInYI2L for <hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8006D21F877F for <hubmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.28]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 9y6l1h0060cZkys5Ay9SLu; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:09:26 +0000
Received: from davidPC ([67.189.235.106]) by omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 9y941h00K2JQnJT3Wy955C; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:09:06 +0000
From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: "'C. M. Heard'" <heard@pobox.com>, "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040324FD8E@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1107160801120.20498@shell4.bayarea.net> <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04036598AC@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <C7EB844485B240EA8DD5349F0EAF5A0F@davidPC> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107191014410.1792@shell4.bayarea.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107191014410.1792@shell4.bayarea.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:08:53 -0400
Message-ID: <A6C82C7D28CE42329AFA57DCFCE9672D@davidPC>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcxGU6a0iWwSV3gqR861MY/buDrajAABVsoQ
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.17609
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:36:58 -0700
Cc: 'Hubmib' <hubmib@ietf.org>, "'Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen'" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification
X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG <hubmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hubmib>, <mailto:hubmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hubmib>
List-Post: <mailto:hubmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hubmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib>, <mailto:hubmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:10:13 -0000

Hi,

My question is:
Is there a separate community (e.g., enterprise vs service providers)
for whom the IETF MIB modules make sense, and for whom updating to the
IEEE MIB modules is not warranted? If so, you might want to keep the
IETF standard separate from the IEEE standard (but not progress the
IETF standard).

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:37 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:dromasca@avaya.com] 
> > > 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: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] 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:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM]
> > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM
> > > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > > >> 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:dlaw@hp.com]
> > > > >> 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: k.evangelista@ieee.org
[mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org]
> > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28
> > > > >> To: Law, David
> > > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; 
> k.breitfelder@ieee.org;
> > > > thompson@ieee.org
> > > > >> 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: +1 732 562 3854
> > > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966
> > > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org
> > > > >> *************************************************
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> Hubmib mailing list
> > > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org
> > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Hubmib mailing list
> > > > Hubmib@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
> > > 
> > 
>