RE: FW: bridgemib wg

Hi KC,

Bridgemib-smiv2-06 may have been ready to submit to the IESG and the
RFC Editor last year, but it isn't any more.

The MIB boilerplate is an old version and needs to be updated.
The copyright templates have changed since last year and need to be
updated. 
The references for SNMPv3 use the RFC257x series, not the RFC341x
series.
You'll need an IANA Considerations section.
The Security Considerations do not list the sensitive objects.

If it's brought up to current publication standards, we can start a
last call and get it published. It won't pass IESG review as is, so I
cannot start a last call without changes being done first.

802.1X has continued to evolve, and I think the IEEE has updated the
mib in their documents since bridge-8021x-03 was last updated.

dbh

-----Original Message-----
From: K.C. Norseth [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 11:34 PM
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
>
>