FW: Pre-last-call review
"Harrington, David" <[email protected]> Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:21:30 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bridge |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <6D745637A7E0F94DA070743C55CDA9BA01976BC1@NHROCMBX1.ets.enterasys.com> |
Hi Dan, I asked the question deliberately because I thought they might be out of sync already. I tend to favor the idea of putting out an Informational RFC with a pointer to the IEEE 802.1X mib, or an Informational RFC with a pointer to the website for IEEE 802.1 mibs. I think we will never keep them in sync, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to publish an IETF version of the mib. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:24 PM > To: C. M. Heard; Harrington, David > Cc: [email protected]; Les Bell > Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Pre-last-call review > > > > 6) an IEEE/IETF sync review - have the IEEE > > > designs changed such that these mibs are no > > > longer appropriate? > > > > I have verified that the module matches the one > > on the IEEE web site, modulo the changes put in > > that were needed to make it compile. However, > > the IEEE was working on an update while this > > was going on. I don't know the status of tat > > effort, but if the IEEE has finished that > > work, then we should probably republishe the > > new version, not this one. > > > > Mike is raising a good issue. What is the point of issuing a > MIB document aligned with the older version of IEEE 802.1X? > The revision (D9) was in Sponsor Ballot last February, so it > should not be far from approval. > > Regards, > > Dan > >