Cleaning up the state of IPv6 MIBs
Bill Fenner <fenner@fenron.com> Mon, 01 June 2015 21:47 UTC
Return-Path: <fenner@fenron.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA2A1A0095 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iB5mCXKXXtC4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (mail-lb0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 399B51A0092 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so92866385lbb.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=X9I9I3OovZdjxVD/CIKqSz3F3DEnk6ZkIC+Hbp0yYdU=; b=YMtmGRiYODiAY/bQQ6uSV02N2eY8wig+XKNFgCo4C+r9UmY6OUSS7u63T0EHheSEnj qT+Vw05n94KgosRH/u0AQqzNy6ediXZ9wFCKSBV63BsQ/dCjm26SfTtU/Cr459gDdRPz icK6OZvT95BxcW8bqg53Onee4fhd9pKxfd4LcuBeg72znjmNl/e/AJb+6nObqfdfoUQp h+eRafxSFVRl3K3E7EywcGGfWboxRtFtYH2fx3q6glRa+ifegjqweKWv8vOmTHtyuwVI XxLwqCrYRdFEWKySBNaNXrrTBZaf9gODUrg7tm3WI+XkZknE18C0ezohKAD8KjztiboJ gyvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlaXwtjAQdTwYnhbOrb1qJu1iMBIMi/HElwscW8h0PMRdXPj+D1hUT4u75o9hSePpmk8tbG
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.129.132 with SMTP id nw4mr23446294lbb.122.1433195221732; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.206.145 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:47:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAATsVbY9Goh1r5w4_0y=m-97Kcsx97wOXGywkjuyOVLvmD_tkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Cleaning up the state of IPv6 MIBs
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@fenron.com>
To: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a88bc15e7af05177bc458"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TV4LK3n1IwWeeqroXUA0JiVQMjA>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 21:47:07 -0000
Hi, I've just published https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fenner-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-00 , whose goal is twofold: 1) Explicitly change the status of RFC2452 (IPV6-TCP-MIB), RFC2454 (IPV6-UDP-MIB), RFC2465 (IPV6-TC, IPV6-MIB), and RFC2466 (IPV6-ICMP-MIB) to Historic. They are currently Proposed Standard, Obsoleted by the newer (2005) version-independent IP-MIB, UDP-MIB, TCP-MIB and IP-FORWARD-MIB. (Oddly, RFC2454 is already Historic, but the others remain PS.) 2) Publish the MIBs with the "STATUS" field changed from "current" to "obsolete". Many MIB repositories are simply populated from the newest RFC containing a given MIB, so since the original RFCs with their "STATUS current" remain in place, there is no signal when simply looking at the MIBs that the IETF has moved in a different direction. The end goal is to make it more clear that the IP version independent MIBs are the ones to use. Since the ipv6 wg published the IP version independent MIBs originally, I thought that 6man would be an appropriate home for this update. Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated. Bill (While composing this email, I realized that I accidentally omitted RFC2466 from the list in the document; I'll fix this before the next revision.)
- Cleaning up the state of IPv6 MIBs Bill Fenner
- Re: Cleaning up the state of IPv6 MIBs C. M. Heard
- Re: [OPSAWG] Cleaning up the state of IPv6 MIBs t.petch
- Re: [OPSAWG] Cleaning up the state of IPv6 MIBs Bill Fenner
- Re: Cleaning up the state of IPv6 MIBs Bill Fenner
- Re: Cleaning up the state of IPv6 MIBs C. M. Heard