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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike, 

Adequate notice seems fine to me.

Enjoy your time away from e-mail. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:14 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,
> 
> 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:[e-mail]]
> > > 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:[e-mail]]
> > > > > 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:[e-mail]]
> > > > > > > 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: [e-mail] [mailto:hubmib-
> > > [e-mail]]
> > > > 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:[e-mail]]
> > > > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM
> > > > > > > > >> To: [e-mail]
> > > > > > > > >> 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:[e-mail]]
> > > > > > > > >> 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: [e-mail]
> > > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28
> > > > > > > > >> To: Law, David
> > > > > > > > >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > > > [e-mail];
> > > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > > >> 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: [phone]
> > > > > > > > >> FAX: [phone]
> > > > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > > > >> *************************************************
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > >> Hubmib mailing list
> > > > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Hubmib mailing list
> > > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >