[Hubmib] IEEE/IETF relationship on Ethernet-specific MIB Modules (was DISCUSS on draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-eth-mib-07.txt)
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 27 July 2012 23:13 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 75D2C11E80F2; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.373
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fL3bVgzvFSzc; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-sj.cisco.com (av-tac-sj.cisco.com [171.68.227.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E8711E80C4; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from fire.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-sj.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6RNDIei000366; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.21.64.247] (sjc-vpn3-247.cisco.com [10.21.64.247]) by fire.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6RNDIU4005875; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5013208E.6020608@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:13:18 -0700
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: adslmib mailing list <adslmib@ietf.org>, hubmib@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070800000707090109030301"
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Howard Frazier <hfrazier@broadcom.com>, ops-area@ietf.org
Subject: [Hubmib] IEEE/IETF relationship on Ethernet-specific MIB Modules (was DISCUSS on draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-eth-mib-07.txt)
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 23:13:22 -0000
Dear all, While DISCUSSing draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-eth-mib-06.txt with the IESG, an issue was brought up. Let me explain. The IETF is no longer developing any Ethernet-related MIB modules and has transferred the responsibility of these development of MIB modules for Ethernet to the IEEE 802.3 WG. This process has already started a few years ago, when the HUBMIB WG was shut down. This process also covers the last RFC produced by the HUBMIG WG, RFC 5066 - Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interfaces MIB <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5066>. This RFC5066 contains two MIB modules 1. the EFM-CU-MIB MIB module (Ethernet to the First Mile Copper), clearly Ethernet-specific 2. the IF-CAP-STACK MIB module is not Ethernet-specific, but generic For example, draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-eth-mib-07.txt refers to this MIB module. However, according to the agreement, it is within the IEEE competence to develop the IEEE8023-IF-CAP-STACK-MIB in 802.3.1 rather than refer RFC 5066. The issue was raised that it didn't make sense to refer to the IEEE8023-IF-CAP-STACK-MIB when this cross-connect functionality is not used for Ethernet, and that the reference RFC5056 was actually preferred. This week, we had an IEEE/IESG meeting where this issue was discussed between Dan Romascanu (as the IEEE liaison), Howard Frazier (802.3.1) and myself. The following has been agreed upon: the EFM-CU-MIB MIB module should be maintained by IEEE, while the IF-CAP-STACK-MIB should be maintained by the IETF. Practically, it means: 1. Obsoleting RFC 5066 2. Creating RFC 5066bis. Extracting IF-CAP-STACK-MIB from RFC5056, with some wording emphasizing the generic nature of this module, and clearly mentioning that the IEEE 802.3.1 is responsible for EFM-CU-MIB. Ed Beili agreed to take the lead on this document. 3. The next version of draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-eth-mib will contain the following text 4.4 Relationship with the IEEE 802.3 MIB modules The IEEE 802.3 working group chartered a task force [IEEE802.3.1] which continues the development of standard MIB modules based on the initial work done in the IETF. Future projects resulting from the work of this Task Force may include and possibly extend the work done in the IETF, such as [RFC5066]. ------------- To Informative References add: [IEEE802.3.1] IEEE P802.3.1 Revision to IEEE Std 802.3.1-2011 (IEEE 802.3.1a) Ethernet MIBs Task Force, http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/1/index.html Thanks to Howard Frazier. Edward Beili, Menachem Dodge, Dan Romascanu, and Moti Morgenstern for helping with this issue. This shows an inter-SDO success story IMHO. A second document has also been discussed. It would be a good idea to have an informational RFC, similar to RFC 4663 - Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge MIB WG to IEEE ... <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4663>, with the following content. 1. Listing of all the RFCs obsoleted by the IEEE 802.3.1-2011 RFC 2108 -- Ethernet Repeater Devices RFC 3621 - Power Ethernet MIB RFC 3635 - Ethernet-like Interface Types RFC 3637 - Ethernet WAN Interface Sublayer RFC 4836 - Ethernet Medium Attachment Units (MAUs) RFC 4837 - Ethernet Passive Optical Networks (EPON) RFC 4878 - Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions on Ethernet-Like Interfaces RFC 5066 - Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interfaces MIB 2. A table mapping the old IETF MIB names with the corresponding new IEEE ones 3. Clarifications/rules on the IETF-IEEE interactions, mailing lists, reviews 4. Clarifications on the intellectual property considerations Next to Dan and Ed, Howard agrees to co-author this document. And that sends a strong positive signal. There is one open issue though with this second document: should we send to historic all the MIB modules mentioned above? What would be the impact for the equipment vendors and NMS applications? Dan Romascanu will present this issue at the OPS-AREA meeting. Finally, regarding the future cooperation between the IEEE and IETF regarding the development of the 802.3.1-2011, Howard Frazier mentioned that any feedback could be sent directly to him, and that he would insert it into the ballot. Regards, Benoit (OPS A.D.)
- [Hubmib] IEEE/IETF relationship on Ethernet-speci… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Hubmib] [OPS-AREA] IEEE/IETF relationship on… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Hubmib] [OPS-AREA] IEEE/IETF relationship on… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Hubmib] [OPS-AREA] IEEE/IETF relationship on… David Harrington
- Re: [Hubmib] [OPS-AREA] IEEE/IETF relationship on… Michael MacFaden
- Re: [Hubmib] [OPS-AREA] IEEE/IETF relationship on… David Harrington
- Re: [Hubmib] [OPS-AREA] IEEE/IETF relationship on… Howard Frazier