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

Glenn Parsons <glenn.parsons@ericsson.com> Mon, 18 July 2011 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <glenn.parsons@ericsson.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 3FB7821F86BB for <hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 7c5-0uZAA49n for <hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B5421F8428 for <hubmib@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p6IMgDv2026613; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:42:32 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0714.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.220]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:42:20 -0400
From: Glenn Parsons <glenn.parsons@ericsson.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:42:19 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification
Thread-Index: AcxFiTbWX6/7mkFsSJumDRZonTb+JAAAJ3kwAAPchiA=
Message-ID: <D9DBDA6E6E3A9F438D9F76F0AF9D7AE32EFC484831@EUSAACMS0714.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040324FD8E@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1107160801120.20498@shell4.bayarea.net><4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04036598AC@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <B12B7CF25F204D7E8C1073949AEF47CD@BertLaptop> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04036598C9@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04036598C9@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Hubmib <hubmib@ietf.org>, David B Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification
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: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:42:53 -0000

Dan,

We did not discuss this option for the 802.1 MIBs at the time, even though that was the general intent.  

The view was that if someone wanted to implement a simple bridge, they could use the IETF MIBs (in RFC 4188, 4318 & 4363).

As a result we imported some definitions from the IETF BRIDGE-MIB and Q-BRIDGE-MIB instead of redefining them.

Given this, is making the IETF Bridge MIBs obsolete appropriate?

For 802.3, I don't think there are any imports from the IETF MIBS, so this would be cleaner.

Cheers,
Glenn.

-----Original Message-----
From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: July-18-11 4:39 PM
To: Bert Wijnen (IETF); C. M. Heard
Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington
Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification



Hi Bert, 

I thought that we can avoid the writing of such an RFC for the transition of the Ethernet MIB documents to IEEE 802.3, as we already approved the transition process within the IESG, and the IEEE 802.3 have completed the first phase of the work. Would you or somebody else object to having the IESG approve marking the IETF RFCs as 'obsolete' and pointing to the IEEE 802.3 in the meta-data or you do believe that we must have this information in an RFC and run this through a consensus process which is broader than the IESG? 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:26 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); C. M. Heard
> Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington
> Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1- 
> 2011ApprovalNotification
> 
> Well, my proposal then would be that we write a 1-2 page informational 
> RFC that explains that the new IEEE modules are the newer modules and 
> should be used.
> The new RFC that we write then obsoletes the IETF MIB RFCs. So they do 
> not become historic, but they get obsoleted bij an informational (or 
> BCP if that is better) RFC document that explains why and points
to
> the new current IEEE MIB modules.
> 
> Bert
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
> To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>et>; "C. M. Heard"
> <heard@pobox.com>
> Cc: "Hubmib" <hubmib@ietf.org>rg>; "David B Harrington"
> <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1- 
> 2011ApprovalNotification
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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