FW: [Bridge-mib] Pre-last-call review

["Harrington, David" <dbh at enterasys.com>]

Hi Dan,

I asked the question deliberately because I thought they might be out of
sync already. 

I tend to favor the idea of putting out an Informational RFC with a
pointer to the IEEE 802.1X mib, or an Informational RFC with a pointer
to the website for IEEE 802.1 mibs. I think we will never keep them in
sync, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to publish an IETF version of
the mib.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:24 PM
> To: C. M. Heard; Harrington, David
> Cc: Bridge-mib@ietf.org; Les Bell
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Pre-last-call review
> 
> > > 6) an IEEE/IETF sync review - have the IEEE
> > > designs changed such that these mibs are no
> > > longer appropriate?
> > 
> > I have verified that the module matches the one
> > on the IEEE web site, modulo the changes put in
> > that were needed to make it compile.  However,
> > the IEEE was working on an update while this
> > was going on.  I don't know the status of tat
> > effort, but if the IEEE has finished that
> > work, then we should probably republishe the
> > new version, not this one.
> > 
> 
> Mike is raising a good issue. What is the point of issuing a 
> MIB document aligned with the older version of IEEE 802.1X? 
> The revision (D9) was in Sponsor Ballot last February, so it 
> should not be far from approval.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 

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