RE: [Bridge-mib] Future directions

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

My 2 agorot (~ 0.8 cents) in-text.

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org 
> [mailto:bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Harrington, David
> Sent: 31 March, 2004 10:21 PM
> To: Bridge-mib@ietf.org
> Subject: [Bridge-mib] Future directions
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The bridgemib work has stalled, and we're working to un-stall it.
> 
> We have been in discussions with IEEE 802.1, and they are willing to
> write their own mibs because this will help them produce mibs
> contemporaneously with the managed functionality. I will be providing
> MIB Doctor reviews for them during the transition, and possibly after
> the transition. IEEE 802.1 plans to publish mibs as part of their
> standard in their normal PDF format, and also make the mibs 
> available in
> text format for import into mib compilers and applications.
> 
> I have been working with Bert, and our current expectation is that the
> Bridgemib WG will finalize the existing bridgemib WG 
> documents, and then
> presumably close down. I am working to get the four remaining 
> documents
> finalized and into WG last call.
> 
> Bert raised a good point; we should ask what the implementers and
> deployers of the mibs would like as a future direction. So let me
> stimulate some discussion, so the powers-that-be in IETF and IEEE have
> some guidance:
> 
> 1) Do you agree with having the IEEE write their own mibs?

yes

> 2) Will you participate in the IEEE 802.1 process for 
> developing the mib
> modules?

yes

> 3) Do you agree the bridgemib WG should be closed down, since it will
> have completed its charter?
> 
yes

> For future mibs produced by IEEE:
> 4) Should they also be published as RFCs? 
> If they are published as RFCs, this would probably be as Informational
> only. The IEEE standard would be the official version, and to 
> the degree
> we could achieve it, the IETF might publish a mirror copy. 

yes, if the IEEE 802.1 WG wishes it so.

> 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. If this was a problem for a large base of customers or users of these MIBs, we would have seen a more consistent participation in the Bridge MIB WG.

> For existing 802.1-related MIBs (1493, 1525, 2674, et al):
> 6) Should these be moved to the IEEE?

yes, if the IEEE 802.1 WG wishes so.

> 7) If not, why not? How should the IETF mib modules be 
> maintained as the
> IEEE 802.1 technologies change?

No, because this becomes an IEEE problem. The last years experience shows that there is no longer enough interest in the IETF to sustain IEEE 802.1 MIBs development and maintenance.

> 8) If yes, what should we do with the existing standards? Would making
> them Historic and replacing them with Informational RFCs that point to
> the IEEE standards documents suffice?

One Informational RFC defining this process, and pointing to the IEEE standards documents would be welcome.

> 
> David Harrington            
> dbh@enterasys.com
> Director, Network Management Architecture
> Office of the CTO, Enterasys Networks
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> Bridge-mib@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> 

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