RE: FW: bridgemib wg

Hi Les,

I agree there is little need to publish an RFC for the 8021X mib,
since the IEEE standard will contain the mib anyway, and we're moving
in the direction of having the IEEE, rather than the IETF, produce any
future mibs for 802.1 technologies.

A benefit to the SMIv2 version of RFC1493 is that an SMIv2 mib
contains additional machine-parseable information, and there is extra
information in the introductory text. That's not a critical need, but
it is a slight benefit. Most applications will never utilize the extra
information, so most operators will never see much of a difference
between the old and new versions.

I would like to see the mibs with the T,V,and RSTP extensions
completed, either in the IETF or the IEEE. We need editors to complete
the work in either case.

Dbh
[email protected]
Bridge-mib acting co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: Les Bell [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:43 AM
To: K.C. Norseth
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] FW: bridgemib wg




There is an updated version of the 802.1X MIB in the revision of this
standard, which is expected to come out soon.  This includes the bug
fixes to the original MIB and a number of other changes to support the
revised state machines in the new version.  Because of this, I no
longer think it will be useful to publish the bug-fixed version of the
original 802.1X MIB as an RFC

The only reason for the SMIv2 version of the RFC 1493 Bridge MIB was
to try and allow it to progress along the standards track.  Is this
still considered to be necessary?  We can get by with RFC 1493 still,
if we decide not to publish this.
We are also missing the implementation reports which are required to
progress it, when I asked for these I got no response.

The updated version of RFC 2674 (which included additional support for
managed objects defined in IEEE 802.1t and IEEE 802.1v) and the RSTP
MIB should be published.  The only issues that I recall with these
MIBs was in getting the boiler-plate text up-to-date for publication
as an IETF RFC.  The question now is whether to finish them in the
IETF, or give them to IEEE 802.1 for publication.

Les...





"K.C. Norseth" <[email protected]>@ietf.org on 23/07/2004 04:33:38

Sent by:  [email protected]


To:   <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:   [email protected]
Subject:  Re: [Bridge-mib] FW:  bridgemib wg


The SMIv2 bridge mib was ready for last call a year ago, with all
going on, it stalled.  The only thing I did to it was to dot the i's
and cross the t's. That was a year ago.  I don't anticipate anything
needed on it still.

The lastest 802.1x discussion is if the mib was still in synch with
IEEE and if I worded the copyright correctly..  Where most of the work
done IETF for the 802.1x mib was to make it an informal RFC and
compile it,  If we can get someone from 802.1 to say that we have not
deviated,  then it should be ready for publishing.  If it does
deviate, then we need to decide if we want to keep the WG open or let
it expire and let IEEE only publish it.

K.C.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David B Harrington" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:30 PM
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] FW: bridgemib wg


> All these documents are pretty well completed. Mainly they need to
be 
> modified to meet submission requirements, such as updating
boilerplate 
> text and references. We need editors to finalize the documents.
>
> I can get you access to the 802.1 documents if you're willing to do
a 
> review of the mib against the functionality. It would probably be
best 
> if somebody from 802.1 actually did the comparison against the
current
> 802.1 specs, but we'd be happy to have you do it.
>
> Thanks,
> dbh
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:29 PM
> To: David B Harrington
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] FW: bridgemib wg
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:40:31PM -0400, David B Harrington wrote:
>
> > > I propose we discard all four existing documents and close the
WG.
> > >
> > > The work has languished long enough that even these updated 
> > > documents may be out of date compared to the current 802.1
specs:
> > > -The SMIv2 version of the bridge mib -The updates for the 802.1X
> mib
> > > -The MIB for Rapid Spanning Tree -The updated MIBs for 802.1P
and 
> > > 802.1Q
> > >
> > > Unless I hear strong consensus objecting to this course, and
> serious
> > > offers to complete the editing, I will start the processes to
> close
> > > the WG.
>
> It is unclear to me what remains to be done on these documents. The
> SMIv2 version of the bridge mib seems to be pretty much done. If you

> just need a review, I am willing to read the SMIv2 bridge mib
against 
> RFC 1493. I do not have 802.1 specs and can't help on that front.
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder     International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>     P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen,
> Germany
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
>
>



_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib