C. M. Heard | 16 Jul 17:24 2011
Picon

Re: FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification

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?

Mike Heard

On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> FYI. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier <at> BROADCOM.COM] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-MIB <at> 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.
> 
(Continue reading)

Bert (IETF) Wijnen | 17 Jul 22:23 2011
Picon

Re: FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification

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 <at> BROADCOM.COM]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-MIB <at> LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
(Continue reading)

Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 18 Jul 21:34 2011

Re: 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 <at> ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces <at> 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
(Continue reading)

C. M. Heard | 18 Jul 21:59 2011
Picon

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

Hello Dan,

Indeed, my question was just about changing the meta-data.  The 
reason for doing so would be to encourage implementors to migrate 
from the IETF versions of these MIB modules, which are no longer 
being maintained, to the IEEE versions of the MIB modules, which 
will be maintained in the future.

Since the IEEE has re-rooted their versions of the modules under new 
top-level OIDs, the existing IETF MIB modules will still need to be 
supported in order to manage the installed base of devices.  To me 
that souds like a good reason NOT to move them to Historic status.

Thanks and regards,

Mike Heard

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> 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) 
> 
(Continue reading)

Bert Wijnen (IETF | 18 Jul 22:26 2011
Picon

Re: 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 <at> avaya.com>
To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <bertietf <at> bwijnen.net>; "C. M. Heard" <heard <at> pobox.com>
Cc: "Hubmib" <hubmib <at> ietf.org>; "David B Harrington" <ietfdbh <at> 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,
(Continue reading)

Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 18 Jul 22:38 2011

Re: 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 <at> 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
(Continue reading)

Bert Wijnen (IETF | 18 Jul 22:44 2011
Picon

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

If you can do it that way, then that would be fine with me.
It would be less work (supposedly).

Bert
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf <at> bwijnen.net>; "C. M. Heard" <heard <at> pobox.com>
Cc: "Hubmib" <hubmib <at> ietf.org>; "David B Harrington" <ietfdbh <at> comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:38 PM
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 <at> bwijnen.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:26 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); C. M. Heard
(Continue reading)

Glenn Parsons | 19 Jul 00:42 2011
Picon

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

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 <at> ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces <at> 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? 
(Continue reading)

Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 19 Jul 01:13 2011

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


Hi Glenn, 

Thanks for reminding one important reason for not making the IETF Bridge
MIBs obsolete. 

There is no intention to change this, at least AFAIK. 

Regards,

Dan 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn Parsons [mailto:glenn.parsons <at> ericsson.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 1:42 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Bert Wijnen (IETF); C. M. Heard
> Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-
> 2011ApprovalNotification
> 
> 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.
> 
(Continue reading)

David Harrington | 19 Jul 06:51 2011
Picon
Picon

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

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 <at> 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
> 
(Continue reading)


Gmane