RE: Augmenting MAU-MIB - was: RE: EFM MIB Internet-Drafts, WG Meetings

My opinion (as a contributor) is that the Etherlike-MIB needs to be supported. It would be the first MIB in the family that would be excepted, and I would like to hear some technical arguments why we should do it. IF_MIB does not provide any Ethernet specific objects to manage the interface. 

I would defer the answer at the second question to John Flick - the editor of the MAU MIB. 

Regards,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 23 October, 2003 4:56 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: '[email protected] '; 'Matt Squire '
> Subject: Augmenting MAU-MIB - was: RE: [Hubmib] EFM MIB 
> Internet-Drafts,
> WG Meetings
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a question as well - I assume that all new interfaces 
> defined in
> the EFM would be considered as Ethernet Like with mandatory 
> EtherLike-MIB
> and MAU-MIB implementation. Is this correct? Theoretically we 
> could require
> just IF-MIB, considering that most implementors choose not support
> EtherLike-MIB.
> 
> We would also need to augment current MAU-MIB with new 
> dot3MauType instances
> defined for EPON and Copper interfaces. Do we have to open a 
> new version of
> MAU-MIB (and who does it) or there's another way of doing it?
> 
> -Edward
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Squire
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: 23/10/03 16:01
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] EFM MIB Internet-Drafts, WG Meetings
> 
>  
> Just speaking for the draft I submitted, it is a very early draft that
> still has a lot of holes.  All input is very appreciated.  
>  
> In particular, one big nagging question is how these new MIBs are
> organized within the existing MIB heirarchy.  For the common 
> stuff, does
> it get a new mib-2 branch, or do we somehow hang it under the dot3
> branch as something under the Ethernet tree?  
>  
> Hoping some of you MIB experts can lend some guidance.  
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 4:59 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Bert Wijnen (E-mail)
> Subject: [Hubmib] EFM MIB Internet-Drafts, WG Meetings
> 
> 
> 
> As you have seen in the announcements that went out in the last couple
> of days, the three individual submission Internet-Drafts including the
> initial submissions for the EFM MIBs are now available. The relevant
> URLs are:
> 
> *
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-squire-hubmib-efm-mib-00.txt
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-squire-hubmib-efm-m
ib-00.txt>

*
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-beili-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-00.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-beili-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-00.tx
t> 
*
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khermosh-hubmib-epon-mib-00.tx
t
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khermosh-hubmib-epon-mib-00.t
xt> 


First, I would like to thank the editors of the three documents - Matt,
Edward, and Lior for the effort, and for meeting the submission
deadline. With this we have already accomplished in time the first item
in our new charter! 

Second, I would strongly suggest that you read the proposals and send
your comments. The final work can happen only with your support and
contribution, and will be as good as we all make it. Take into account
that these are only initial proposals, and there is a long way to go.
All comments need to be sent to the WG list, at [email protected]. 

Third, if there are other contributions, let me know, and prepare them
in Internet-Draft format. Our next milestone is issuing the first round
of WG Internet-Drafts in December - we need to know if the three drafts
already published are the only contributions, or there will be other
I-Ds to be considered. 

Now about WG meetings. The Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB WG will not
meet during the November IETF meeting, because of the conflict between
the IETF meeting and the IEEE Plenary that are scheduled for the same
week. Personally I think that we do need face-to-face meetings, although
much of the work can be done on the mailing list. The next two
opportunities for face to face meetings seem to be:

- an interim meeting in Vancouver, BC in January (I do not know the
exact week) co-located with the IEEE 802.3 Interim meeting 

- meeting at the IETF meeting in Seoul, Korea (2/29-3/5)

Everybody who thinks that they can/will attend one or both of the
meetings - please send me an e-mail - we need a headcount before making
a decision and engaging in any logistics. 

If we decide for an Interim, we need to have it approved by the IETF
Area Director, and we might need a sponsor for the room meeting space in
Vancouver (maybe IEEE 802.3ah can help?).

Thanks and Regards,

Dan