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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Tue, 19 July 2011 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.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 4DDF421F84C5 for <hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.331
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.268, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 qw5BmJ-HCnvE for <hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B756611E8095 for <hubmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuYAAM0EJk6HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABOBpgSj0Z3sR4Cm3ODPYIgXwSYCoMLiC8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,230,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="257488774"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 18:31:04 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 18:23:37 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:30:49 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0403659E87@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <A6C82C7D28CE42329AFA57DCFCE9672D@davidPC>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification
Thread-Index: AcxGU6a0iWwSV3gqR861MY/buDrajAABVsoQAAJ2NPA=
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> <A6C82C7D28CE42329AFA57DCFCE9672D@davidPC>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
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 22:31:11 -0000

Hi, 

I think that the situation with the Ethernet MIB modules is somehow
different from the one with the Bridge modules on this respect. The
Ethernet MIB modules laready covered some of the SP space when Ethernet
started to propagate in the Metro and WAN applications. There is no
clear separation and what IEEE 802.3 continues the work in the IETF.
Actually the first set of MIB modules issued by IEEE 802.3.1 changes
little in the MIB modules structure beyond moving their root under IEEE
control and extending the range of supported PHYs and MAUs. 

I may not know all that is happening and I am ready to stand corrected
if I am missing information. As I am at the IEEE 802 meeting this week I
will try to learn more on the IEEE 802.3 side. 

Regards,

Dan 
(speaking as contributor)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Harrington [mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:09 AM
> To: 'C. M. Heard'; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: 'Bert (IETF) Wijnen'; 'Hubmib'
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011
> ApprovalNotification
> 
> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >