Re: [Hubmib] [MIB-DOCTORS] Questions on IEEE published mib modules vs IETF

Michael MacFaden <> Wed, 17 August 2011 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E847A21F8BCB; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wp1ekCAXvWR4; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B99221F8BC4; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so823453wwf.13 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1DG5POvxlB7CVAOKDB6Jmj8nbRBYW/claZu19agalIo=; b=ZVoCz/89nWE6wpzfFruN2onHd8N7OP6/AA4B/melMaTKhBVBNC7cuHz/U5vpXDJfjS AlUH26EqG5bR+mE9diHowoS+hvrTUYMQE++ik/OcfzwjISk+X2nWU0TmKOl8el1Gmrzy ickLZq6sNrS8zKujccrGNwSnR8ZlxqmKMKv5Q=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id s47mr4219170wel.95.1313601365038; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:16:04 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: eYQ_9Cyb3jWnMnXIhfHY1AFfD3M
Message-ID: <>
From: Michael MacFaden <>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:49:52 -0700
Cc: "MIB Doctors \(E-mail\)" <>,
Subject: Re: [Hubmib] [MIB-DOCTORS] Questions on IEEE published mib modules vs IETF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:15:22 -0000

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
<> wrote:
> There is no equivalent of the IETF maturity levels in the IEEE. There is
> just one level of standards, and there is a re-affirmation process that
> needs to happen every five years, unless the standard was updated
> sooner.

Ok, that's good to know. Unfortunately there is no README.txt file at this URL
to describe when files are posted here at what part of the standards
process this is/such as being up for reaffirmation. Am
going to the pdf's just to make sure.

> The MIB modules defined in RFC 3635 and RFC 4836 (and a few more) are in
> the scope of IEEE 802.3.1 which was approved as an IEEE standard a few
> months ago. We entertained a discussion at and around the Quebec meeting
> and decided to mark the RFCs as obsolete by the IEEE standards and point
> to these, but not transit them to Historic (not yet in any case). Bert
> will write when he gets some time a short Informational RFC to document
> this transition.

Makes sense to me, have already started using IEEE8021-BRIDGE-MIB,
IEEE8021-Q-BRIDGE, and others in products so would
prefer new to use correct IEEE versions when they become available.

Thanks again,
Mike MacFaden