Re: FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification

Dan,

Waiting until after the IETF meeting to run the proposal past the 
IESG sounds quite reasonable.

If the IESG is open to the proposal, it seems to me that a 
widely-announced IETF last-call should suffice.  My suggestion would 
be to cc: the last call announcement to the hubmib, ietfmibs, 
ops-area, and (possibly) opsawg lists (besides of course 
ietf-announce, where all such things appear).

Thanks

Mike

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Hi Mike, 
> 
> I think that everybody who expressed opinions in this thread agreed with
> your suggestion to mark the said RFCs as Obsoleted by IEEE 802.3.1 ...
> We also seem to agree that if possible we would do it by an IESG
> decision, avoiding the extra cost of writing an RFC. I am not sure yet
> that the IESG will accept this proposal, and I hesitate to run it in the
> busy week before the IETF meeting. 
> 
> Question - do we need to run this beyond the hubmib list? A one-slide
> presentation in the OPSAREA meeting for example? 
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:37 PM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib
> > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011
> > ApprovalNotification
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > David Harrington and Glenn Parsons both provide good reasons why the
> > status of the IETF Bridge MIB modules should remain unchanged.
> > 
> > My question, however, concerned the Ethernet-related MIB modules in
> > RFCs 2108, 3621, 3635, 3637, 4836, 4837, 4878, and 5066.  The
> > situation for those is different.  New versions (rooted under
> > different OIDs) have been published in IEEE Std 802.3.1, and the
> > overview section of that document says that it "supersedes and makes
> > obsolete" those RFCs.
> > 
> > Mike Heard
> > 
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, David Harrington wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the IETF
> > > Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be obsolete or
> > > historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue to be
> > > valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF standards.
> > >
> > > IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in ways that
> > > were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying indexes to
> > > existing tables in order to support per-provider(?) discriminators.
> > > IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise
> > environments,
> > > and many of those environments had no desire to move to the
> > > per-provider approach that was/is important to service providers.
> > >
> > > Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid option
> > > addressed this difference in perspective.
> > >
> > > I suppose one could draw a parallel with the RADIUS/Diameter split
> > and
> > > co-existence for different environments.
> > >
> > > dbh
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM
> > > > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard
> > > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington
> > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011
> > > > ApprovalNotification
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of
> > > > a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather
> > > > new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when
> > > > work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who
> > > > wrote RFC 4663.
> > > >
> > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these
> > > > RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for which the
> > > > procedure is described by an IESG statement -
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-
> > historic.html)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks and Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> On
> > > > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM
> > > > > To: C. M. Heard
> > > > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011
> > > > > ApprovalNotification
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote:
> > > > > > Dan,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011.  Since
> it
> > > > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC
> > 2108,
> > > > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878,
> and
> > RFC
> > > > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-
> > data
> > > > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std
> > > > > > 802.3.1?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this.  Dan,
> > do you
> > > > > know.
> > > > >
> > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the
> > listed
> > > > > RFCs with a
> > > > > pointer to the IEEE document.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bert
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike Heard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > > > > >> FYI.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Dan
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM
> > > > > >> To: [email protected]
> > > > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval
> Notification
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task
> > Force,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management
> > > > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been
> approved
> > as an
> > > > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of
> > you for
> > > > > your work on this project.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the
> > June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in
> > conjunction
> > > > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to
> > plan
> > > > > our work for the revision project.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Howard Frazier
> > > > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM
> > > > > >> To: Howard Frazier
> > > > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hi Howard,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval
> notification.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Congratulations!!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > >>    David
> > > > > >> _______________________________________
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28
> > > > > >> To: Law, David
> > > > > >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected];
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 17 May 2011
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> David Law
> > > > > >> HP Ltd.
> > > > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave
> > > > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR
> > > > > >> Scotland
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> cc:          Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair
> > > > > >>          Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager
> > > > > >>                Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing
> > > > > >>          Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management
> > Information
> > > > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet
> > > > > >> Dear David,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a
> new
> > > > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy
> of
> > the
> > > > > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications
> > Department.
> > > > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of
> > approval by
> > > > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised,
> > > > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be
> > > > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for
> > > > > administrative withdrawal.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right
> > to
> > > > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information
> on
> > this
> > > > > process:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to
> > > > speaking with
> > > > > your editor.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > > >> ************************************************
> > > > > >> Karen M. Evangelista
> > > > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator
> > > > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department
> > > > > >> 445 Hoes Lane
> > > > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA
> > > > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854
> > > > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966
> > > > > >> [email protected]
> > > > > >> *************************************************
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> Hubmib mailing list
> > > > > >> [email protected]
> > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Hubmib mailing list
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
> > > >
> > >
>