RE: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Smith [mailto:ah_smith@acm.org]
> Sent: vrijdag 7 maart 2003 17:45
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'
> Cc: diffserv@ietf.org; Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com;
> jf.mule@cablelabs.com; narten@us.ibm.com; erik.nordmark@sun.com
> Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs
> 
> Bert,
> 
> When you say "bring their stuff under the IETF umbrella", are you saying
> that the original MIB in question was developed outside of IETF and is
> being brought in, or are you talking about the link technology itself? 
> 
As far as I understand it, several (if not all) of the MIB modules 
(quite a few) have been developed in cablelabs context, and in fact
have been implemented at a large scale.

> If the latter, then I think the older IEEE802/IETF cooperation model on
> MIBs works OK - there you had an IETF WG (bridge, maumib, ifmib etc.)
> defining SMI MIBs under IETF root OID and having WG contributors make
> sure that adequate coordination happened; a newer model where IEEE802
> has defined some of its own SMI MIBs has also been working OK (e.g. Link
> Aggregation MIB from IEEE802, defined under IEEE802's own root OID). 
> 
> For the former case, what I don't think works is to have a MIB defined
> outside of IETF and then brought to the IETF for some reason. What would
> be the reason to do that? for IETF endorsement, for having IETF fixing
> things that are broken, just to use the IETF root OID? I don't know the
> specific reasons in this case for how this work got here. But it's
> obvious to me that, if you bring existing work to IETF for
> standardisation, be it the work of another standards' group, an industry
> group or individual contributions, *you give up change control* and you
> do not get any guarantees of backwards-compatibility: naturally you
> don't expect gratuitous non-compatibility with earlier work - the WG
> needs a valid reason to change something and one such reason would be
> alignment with other IETF MIBs.
> 
I think that is all understood. 
But I will leave it to Rich and JeanFrancois to answer the exact motives
for coming to IETF.