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

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.com>
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 1A0BB228013 for <hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 5NmEznU4ALzF for <hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E597228012 for <hubmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19665 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2011 20:14:16 -0700
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 19 Jul 2011 20:14:15 -0700
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0403659E8B@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107192003210.12106@shell4.bayarea.net>
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> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0403659E82@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107191759520.12106@shell4.bayarea.net> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0403659E8B@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: Hubmib <hubmib@ietf.org>, David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, "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: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:14:24 -0000

Dan,

Sorry, my bad -- I did not mean to suggest anything heavyweight, 
certainly not publishing an RFC, just giving adequte notice to 
interested parties of the intended action.  Something less official 
than a last call put to the relevant lists would be quite 
sufficient.

Thanks and regards,

Mike

P.S.  I'll be out of e-mail contact for approximately the next 10 
days; I'll try to be prompt about attending to anything in the queue 
when I return.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> 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:heard@pobox.com]
> > 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:heard@pobox.com]
> > > > 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: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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>