Re: [Bridge-mib] Future directions

[Elisabeth Gloria <green_elisabeth at yahoo.com.au>]

David,

I my opinion (while I am not a member of WG):

> 1) Do you agree with having the IEEE write
> their own mibs?
Yes, I do.
 
> 2) Will you participate in the IEEE 802.1
> process for developing the mib modules?
Yes, I will as far as I can.

> 3) Do you agree the bridgemib WG should be
> closed down, since it will
> have completed its charter?
No, I wouldn't like, see next item. 

> 4) Should they also be published as RFCs?
Yes, they should.

> 5) Synchronization between IEEE/IETF
> review/publishing cycles has proven
> difficult, so we are considering publishing
> Informational RFCs with only
> a pointer to the IEEE standard. Would that
> suffice?
Yes, it would.

> For existing 802.1-related MIBs (1493, 1525, 2674,
> et al):
> 6) Should these be moved to the IEEE?
Not, it is not necessarily.

> 7) If not, why not? How should the IETF mib modules
> be maintained as the
> IEEE 802.1 technologies change?
These MIBs should be made obsolete by new ones.

Regards, Beth


Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib