RE: Historic confusion over Ethernet MIBs!

I have copied the hubmib list to the thread, as I think the subject is of interest for the broad WG community.

My question to Bob and the IESG is why should an Applicability Statement RFC have more visibility than marking RFC 1643 as Historic? I do not mind to follow whatever is the IESG practice in such cases, but I agree with Bert that we should do both. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 12:12 AM
> To: Bob Braden; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Historic confusion over Ethernet MIBs!
> 
> 
> >   *> 
> >   *> That's right.  Let me add two other things:
> >   *> 
> >   *> 1.) Some implementors have reportedly uses 1643 in lieu of 2665
> >   *> because 1643 it is at full standard while 2665 is at proposed.
> >   *> 
> >   *> 2.) The hubmib WG is getting ready to issue a new revision that
> >   *> will obsolete 2665 (the "RFC xxxx" referred to in the draft).
> >   *> It will also be at proposed because it adds new stuff to the
> >   *> MIB to support 10Gb/s Ethernet.
> >   *> 
> >   *> The main reason for sending 1643 to Historic is to signal to
> >   *> implementors that they should not use it and should use the
> >   *> most up-to-date document instead.
> > 
> > There is a concern that those vendors who do not pay enough 
> attention
> > to figure it out probably won't pay attention to the Historic
> > designation either.  A more effective approach might be to write a
> > short RFC that is an "Applicability Statement for Ethernet 
> MIBs", with
> > MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT, etc
> > 
> > Using Historic status in this manner in lieu of an AS is believed by
> > some of us to be a questionable concept, and is not the way we have
> > proceeded in the past.
> > 
> Bob, are you saying that the 1643 should not be reclassified Historic?
> I don't think I agree with that.
> 
> If you are saying that we should write an AS and in there explain
> the relationship of the various MIBs and also explain why 1643
> goes historic, that I can live with.
> 
> Bert
> > Bob Braden
> > 
> 
> >   *> 
> >   *> > Now.. would it help if we ask the authors to explain 
> > this in the
> >   *> > document that they want to publsih explaining why 1643 goes
> >   *> > to historic (in fact they may already do so.. but I need to
> >   *> > check).
> >   *> 
> >   *> The draft (which is intended to be published concurrently with
> >   *> the new "RFC xxxx" that obsoletes 2665) does say (in the 
> > abstract)
> >   *> that RFC 1643 is at Standard while "RFC xxxx" is at 
> Proposed but
> >   *> neglects to say that the other documents have been 
> obsoleted and
> >   *> it does not mention 2666 at all.  We can add that if you want.
> >   *> 
> >   *> On Friday, May 03, 2002 Bob Braden wrote:
> >   *> > Maybe they need to write a short Applicability 
> > Statement RFC that
> >   *> > straighens it all out?
> >   *> 
> >   *> I don't mind turning the draft into "Applicability 
> Statement for
> >   *> RFC 1643 to Historic" or something like that and adding more
> >   *> explanation.  However it would be helpful if you will be
> >   *> specific about what you want us to change.  Also, I'd like to
> >   *> request that suggestions be cc:'d to the hubmib working group
> >   *> mailing list ([email protected]) since this is a WG work item.
> >   *> 
> >   *> Thanks
> >   *> 
> >   *> Mike
> >   *> 
> > 
>