RE: IANA Maintained TC for MAU types

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> [Mike Heard wrote:]
> > [... T]he draft as currently written requires a Standards Action
> > (as defined in RFC 2434) in order to make modifications to the
> > proposed IANA-maintained MIB module. 	[ ... ] It seems to me
> > that very little time or effort will be saved compared to doing
> > what we do now, namely getting WG consensus and IESG approval to
> > issue a new revision of the MAU-MIB.
> 
> So instead of requiring RFC2434 Standards Action, we could do a
> "Specification Required" and/or "Expert Review", For expert
> review we would make sure that we check with IEEE of course.

Perhaps then the optimal arrangement would indeed be Expert Review,
provided that the IANA Considerations language in the MIB module
explicitly state that new MAU types are to be added when & only when
they are added to IEEE Std 802.3

In an offline e-mail on another matter, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Regarding the MIB that triggered your email: I think this MIB module
> should be registered directly below mib-2 anyway.

I think I agree with this.  Note that it means just that as OID
value of the form { mib-2 xxx } would be assigned to the
MODULE-IDENTITY descriptor (which, BTW, should probably be
ianaMauMib rather than ianaMauTC if my module name change suggestion
is accepted);  all of the OBJECT-IDENTITY definitions would remain
as they are now.

Mike