Jari Arkko | 21 Jun 22:41 2006
Picon

IPOIB WG closing down

Folks,

IPOIB has completed what I consider its main work items. There are
some additional work items (MIBs) in the milestone plan, but after
reviewing the status and activity in the group, and discussing with
the chairs, we have concluded that its best to close the working
group rather than to try to complete the remaining items.

The group will be closed before Montreal. The mailing list will
remain, and may be needed, for instance, if there are AUTH48
issues in the last document that you have in the RFC Editor's
queue (currently pending IANA actions to complete).

Jari Arkko
Hal Rosenstock | 22 Jun 11:06 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: IPOIB WG closing down

Hi,

Is there a way that any additional IPoIB MIB standardization at the IETF
occur if this is done ? I thought there was sufficient interest in at least
the SM MIB to complete that work.

Also, what is the status of IPoIB-CM ? Will this be moving forward within
the IETF process towards RFC ?

Thanks.

-- Hal

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko <at> piuha.net>
To: <ipoverib <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: [Ipoverib] IPOIB WG closing down

> Folks,
>
> IPOIB has completed what I consider its main work items. There are
> some additional work items (MIBs) in the milestone plan, but after
> reviewing the status and activity in the group, and discussing with
> the chairs, we have concluded that its best to close the working
> group rather than to try to complete the remaining items.
>
> The group will be closed before Montreal. The mailing list will
> remain, and may be needed, for instance, if there are AUTH48
> issues in the last document that you have in the RFC Editor's
(Continue reading)

Vivek Kashyap | 22 Jun 16:43 2006
Picon

Re: IPOIB WG closing down

Hi Hal,

The IPoIB-CM draft is in the RFC-editor queue already. See Jari's mail:

> The group will be closed before Montreal. The mailing list will
> remain, and may be needed, for instance, if there are AUTH48
> issues in the last document that you have in the RFC Editor's
> queue (currently pending IANA actions to complete).

thanks,
Vivek
--
Vivek Kashyap
Linux Technology Center, IBM
vivk <at> us.ibm.com
kashyapv <at> us.ibm.com
Ph: 503 578 3422 T/L: 775 3422

"Hal Rosenstock" <hnrose <at> earthlink.net>




          "Hal Rosenstock" <hnrose <at> earthlink.net>

          06/22/2006 02:06 AM
          Please respond to Hal Rosenstock



To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko <at> piuha.net>, <ipoverib <at> ietf.org>
cc:
Subject: Re: [Ipoverib] IPOIB WG closing down


Hi,

Is there a way that any additional IPoIB MIB standardization at the IETF
occur if this is done ? I thought there was sufficient interest in at least
the SM MIB to complete that work.

Also, what is the status of IPoIB-CM ? Will this be moving forward within
the IETF process towards RFC ?

Thanks.

-- Hal

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko <at> piuha.net>
To: <ipoverib <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: [Ipoverib] IPOIB WG closing down


> Folks,
>
> IPOIB has completed what I consider its main work items. There are
> some additional work items (MIBs) in the milestone plan, but after
> reviewing the status and activity in the group, and discussing with
> the chairs, we have concluded that its best to close the working
> group rather than to try to complete the remaining items.
>
> The group will be closed before Montreal. The mailing list will
> remain, and may be needed, for instance, if there are AUTH48
> issues in the last document that you have in the RFC Editor's
> queue (currently pending IANA actions to complete).
>
> Jari Arkko
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPoverIB mailing list
> IPoverIB <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib


_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
IPoverIB <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib
_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
IPoverIB <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib
Jari Arkko | 22 Jun 22:21 2006
Picon

Re: IPOIB WG closing down

Hi Hal,

>Is there a way that any additional IPoIB MIB standardization at the IETF
>occur if this is done ? I thought there was sufficient interest in at least
>the SM MIB to complete that work.
>  
>
Well, as far as I understand all the MIB documents are currently
expired, and we are about four years behind the deadlines listed
in the charter.

It would be great of course if there was a pocket of energy somewhere
to complete the MIBs. Is there? In any case, even after WGs close the
ADs sometimes shepherd particular documents through the IESG.
I'd be willing to do that for an IB-related MIB, if someone completed
one.

>Also, what is the status of IPoIB-CM ? Will this be moving forward within
>the IETF process towards RFC ?
>  
>
It is approved, and currently in the RFC Editor's queue. Closing the group
down does not affect this document's progress towards an RFC.

--Jari
Hal Rosenstock | 23 Jun 01:03 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: IPOIB WG closing down

Hi Jari,

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Hi Hal,
>
>> Is there a way that any additional IPoIB MIB standardization at the
>> IETF occur if this is done ? I thought there was sufficient interest
>> in at least the SM MIB to complete that work.
>>
>>
> Well, as far as I understand all the MIB documents are currently
> expired, and we are about four years behind the deadlines listed
> in the charter.
>
> It would be great of course if there was a pocket of energy somewhere
> to complete the MIBs. Is there?

I had made a start at dusting off the SM MIB. I believe completing this work
is important.
I also think there were others who expressed an interest in this particular
MIB.

> In any case, even after WGs close the
> ADs sometimes shepherd particular documents through the IESG.
> I'd be willing to do that for an IB-related MIB, if someone completed
> one.

That would be great. What would the process be ? How would comments be
solicited ?

>> Also, what is the status of IPoIB-CM ? Will this be moving forward
>> within the IETF process towards RFC ?
>>
>>
> It is approved, and currently in the RFC Editor's queue. Closing the
> group down does not affect this document's progress towards an RFC.

Thanks; I somehow missed that.

-- Hal

> --Jari
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPoverIB mailing list
> IPoverIB <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib
Eitan Zahavi | 23 Jun 10:39 2006
Picon

RE: IPOIB WG closing down

Hi Jari, Hal,

I will also be interested in working on the SM MIB.

Eitan Zahavi
Senior Engineering Director, Software Architect
Mellanox Technologies LTD
Tel:+972-4-9097208
Fax:+972-4-9593245
P.O. Box 586 Yokneam 20692 ISRAEL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:hnrose <at> earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 2:03 AM
> To: Jari Arkko
> Cc: ipoverib <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ipoverib] IPOIB WG closing down
> 
> Hi Jari,
> 
> Jari Arkko wrote:
> > Hi Hal,
> >
> >> Is there a way that any additional IPoIB MIB standardization at the
> >> IETF occur if this is done ? I thought there was sufficient
interest
> >> in at least the SM MIB to complete that work.
> >>
> >>
> > Well, as far as I understand all the MIB documents are currently
> > expired, and we are about four years behind the deadlines listed
> > in the charter.
> >
> > It would be great of course if there was a pocket of energy
somewhere
> > to complete the MIBs. Is there?
> 
> I had made a start at dusting off the SM MIB. I believe completing
this work
> is important.
> I also think there were others who expressed an interest in this
particular
> MIB.
> 
> > In any case, even after WGs close the
> > ADs sometimes shepherd particular documents through the IESG.
> > I'd be willing to do that for an IB-related MIB, if someone
completed
> > one.
> 
> That would be great. What would the process be ? How would comments be
> solicited ?
> 
> >> Also, what is the status of IPoIB-CM ? Will this be moving forward
> >> within the IETF process towards RFC ?
> >>
> >>
> > It is approved, and currently in the RFC Editor's queue. Closing the
> > group down does not affect this document's progress towards an RFC.
> 
> Thanks; I somehow missed that.
> 
> -- Hal
> 
> > --Jari
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPoverIB mailing list
> > IPoverIB <at> ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPoverIB mailing list
> IPoverIB <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib
> 
Thomas Narten | 24 Jun 12:47 2006
Picon

Re: IPOIB WG closing down

> I will also be interested in working on the SM MIB.

This is directed at this mailing list in general:

Rather than say "I'm interested in working on this", could folk please
Just Do It?

Talk is cheap, and lots of people always say something is important
and should get done. But it only gets done if people put in the time,
and in this WG, people haven't put in the cycles (on the MIB work in
particular).

Thomas

Gmane