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
  *> 

Dan,

Let me reply somewhat carefully, after taking off my RFC Editor project
hat.  You will note that I am still wearing a funny hat-like object,
that is my Internet-fossil hat.

What does a "standard" mean?  And when does one cease to be a
standard?  Consider the ANSI standard for buggy whips (if there is
one); would it not still be a standard today, regardless of its current
lack of popularity?

When we set up the Internet standards process (which happened long
before RFC 2026 or POISED) we distinguished Technical Specifications
from Applicability Statements.  A TS tells you what, an AS tell you
when to use it in the real world.  I still believe this is the logical
approach.  A TS may be a Standard, but a later AS may say, DON'T DO
THAT -- or, as the system is supposed to work, it is OBSOLETED by a
later Standard.

Now, there are practical realities in the world.  One reality is that
the IETF standards process, as designed and documented, does not work
very well: very few standards track documents make it through the
process to Standard status.  Another reality is that it seems much
easier to just demote a Standard to Historic than to write an AS. But
in my observation over many years of this stuff, the situation is often
much more complex than one bit of information -- and Historic would be
only one bit.  A newbie trying to figure out all that you know about
the area would like/deserves/needs some guidance in understanding the
relationship among the relevant RFCs.  That's work, but it's important
work.  One good rule might be to generally require an explanatory AS
whenever a standards-track TS is moved to Historic.

So, you ask, why not move your protocol to Historic AND write an AS?
There may be circumstances where this is the best answer (and perhaps
yours is one of them, I don't know.)  One could argue that when further
*use* of a Standard specification is a REALLY BAD IDEA(!!) because it
threatens the stability and/or interoperability of the Internet, then
marking it Historic as well as writing a strong Thou-Shalt-Not AS
would be the best course.

However, I oppose reflexively using Historic when a specification has
merely fallen out of current vogue.  We often these days have multiple
generations of specs interoperating -- Widget 2, Widget 3, ...  As long
as Widget 2 continues to be in productive use in the Internet, I don't
see the logic of making its specification, currently a Standard, into
Historic.  The proper action in that case is to write an AS that says
"Implement Widget 3 in new code, but running Widget 2 is still
permissible".  And I would not use the Historic bit as a short-hand in
such a case.  I oppose even more strongly moving a Standard to Historic
just because it is not in vogue any more.  Circumstances change, and we
might find in the future that is has become useful again.  And there
may well be particular circumstances where the seldom-used Standard is
still relevant to someone, maybe in some particular corner of the
Internet.

So from all the considerations above, I am suspicious of the
correctness of moving a specification to Historic.  It happens that
some in the IESG has a tendency to move standards track documents
wholesale to Historic, so there is a disagreement.

In summary, I say AS yes, Historic maybe.

Bob Braden



*> > -----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
  *> > >   *> 
  *> > > 
  *> > 
  *>