From heard@pobox.com Sat Jul 16 08:24:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B1921F8591 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:24:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M7fvarU3PukR for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC8F21F8505 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 29763 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2011 08:24:17 -0700 Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 16 Jul 2011 08:24:16 -0700 Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:24:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "C. M. Heard" X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-2133786286-1119805959-1310828731=:20498" Content-ID: Cc: Hubmib Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:24:19 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---2133786286-1119805959-1310828731=:20498 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-ID: Dan, This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC 2108, RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and RFC 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-data for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std 802.3.1? Mike Heard On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > FYI. > > Regards, > > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force, > > The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved as an IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of you for your work on this project. > > A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in conjunction with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to plan our work for the revision project. > > Howard Frazier > Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > -----Original Message----- > From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > To: Howard Frazier > Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > Hi Howard, > > On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. > > Congratulations!! > > Best regards, > David > _______________________________________ > > From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > To: Law, David > Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; k.breitfelder@ieee.org; thompson@ieee.org > Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > 17 May 2011 > > David Law > HP Ltd. > 20 Clayknowes Ave > Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > Scotland >   > cc:          Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair >         Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager >               Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing >         Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > Dear David, > > I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of the document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications Department. The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of approval by the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for administrative withdrawal.   > > It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right to appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on this process: >   > http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ >   > http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > Please contact me if you have any questions prior to speaking with your editor.   > > Sincerely, > ************************************************ > Karen M. Evangelista > IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > IEEE Standards Activities Department > 445 Hoes Lane > Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > k.evangelista@ieee.org > ************************************************* > ---2133786286-1119805959-1310828731=:20498-- From bertietf@bwijnen.net Sun Jul 17 13:24:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA1221F85B8 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lPzPpPLQl2Xq for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1342]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3CE21F85B5 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dodo.ripe.net ([193.0.23.4]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QiXsc-00033I-Ev; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:24:00 +0200 Received: from dog.ripe.net ([193.0.1.217] helo=BWMACBOOK.local) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QiXsb-0006y4-Iq; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:23:58 +0200 Message-ID: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:23:57 +0200 From: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "C. M. Heard" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Spam-Level: - X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -1.0 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% [score: 0.0880] X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd4da6ab4174e367aa858ebce3e319b22d4 Cc: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , Hubmib Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:24:09 -0000 On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > Dan, > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC 2108, > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and RFC > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-data > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > 802.3.1? Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, do you know. If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the listed RFCs with a pointer to the IEEE document. Bert > > Mike Heard > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> FYI. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification >> >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force, >> >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved as an IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of you for your work on this project. >> >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. >> >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in conjunction with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to plan our work for the revision project. >> >> Howard Frazier >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM >> To: Howard Frazier >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification >> >> Hi Howard, >> >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. >> >> Congratulations!! >> >> Best regards, >> David >> _______________________________________ >> >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 >> To: Law, David >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; k.breitfelder@ieee.org; thompson@ieee.org >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification >> >> >> 17 May 2011 >> >> David Law >> HP Ltd. >> 20 Clayknowes Ave >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR >> Scotland >> >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter >> >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet >> Dear David, >> >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of the document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications Department. The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. >> >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of approval by the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for administrative withdrawal. >> >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right to appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on this process: >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ >> >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to speaking with your editor. >> >> Sincerely, >> ************************************************ >> Karen M. Evangelista >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator >> IEEE Standards Activities Department >> 445 Hoes Lane >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 >> k.evangelista@ieee.org >> ************************************************* >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hubmib mailing list >> Hubmib@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Jul 18 12:34:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC59E21F874A for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:34:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.261 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.338, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CHKKwpETgP6n for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4812A21F8748 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:34:46 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuUAAEqKJE7GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABNBpg4j0J3sGcCm1WDPYIgXwSYBIMKiC8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,223,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="257235900" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2011 15:34:43 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2011 15:32:48 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:34:40 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification Thread-Index: AcxEv4AgiLur4hjvTfCftDsoIozQXAAwUQrQ References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" , "C. M. Heard" Cc: Hubmib , David B Harrington Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:34:50 -0000 Hi,=20 I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who wrote RFC 4663.=20 To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for which the procedure is described by an IESG statement - http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html)=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > To: C. M. Heard > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > ApprovalNotification >=20 > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > Dan, > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC 2108, > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and RFC > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-data > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > > 802.3.1? >=20 > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, do you > know. >=20 > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the listed > RFCs with a > pointer to the IEEE document. >=20 > Bert > > > > Mike Heard > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > >> FYI. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Dan > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force, > >> > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved as an > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of you for > your work on this project. > >> > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the June > IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > >> > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in conjunction > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to plan > our work for the revision project. > >> > >> Howard Frazier > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > >> To: Howard Frazier > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> > >> Hi Howard, > >> > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. > >> > >> Congratulations!! > >> > >> Best regards, > >> David > >> _______________________________________ > >> > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > >> To: Law, David > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > thompson@ieee.org > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> > >> > >> 17 May 2011 > >> > >> David Law > >> HP Ltd. > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > >> Scotland > >> > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > >> > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management Information > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > >> Dear David, > >> > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of the > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications Department. > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > >> > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of approval by > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > administrative withdrawal. > >> > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right to > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on this > process: > >> > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > >> > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > >> > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to speaking with > your editor. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> ************************************************ > >> Karen M. Evangelista > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > >> 445 Hoes Lane > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > >> ************************************************* > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Hubmib mailing list > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Hubmib mailing list > Hubmib@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib From heard@pobox.com Mon Jul 18 12:59:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2896611E8071 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:59:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dIMXdO24i2+I for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DD721F86FF for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 3999 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2011 12:59:23 -0700 Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 18 Jul 2011 12:59:22 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:59:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "C. M. Heard" X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Hubmib , David B Harrington , "Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen" Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:59:28 -0000 Hello Dan, Indeed, my question was just about changing the meta-data. The reason for doing so would be to encourage implementors to migrate from the IETF versions of these MIB modules, which are no longer being maintained, to the IEEE versions of the MIB modules, which will be maintained in the future. Since the IEEE has re-rooted their versions of the modules under new top-level OIDs, the existing IETF MIB modules will still need to be supported in order to manage the installed base of devices. To me that souds like a good reason NOT to move them to Historic status. Thanks and regards, Mike Heard On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi, > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of a > non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather new. I see > that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when work was transferred > to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who wrote RFC 4663. > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these RFCs, > not about changing their status to Historic (for which the procedure is > described by an IESG statement - > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html) > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > To: C. M. Heard > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > ApprovalNotification > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > > Dan, > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC 2108, > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and RFC > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-data > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > > > 802.3.1? > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, do you > > know. > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the listed > > RFCs with a > > pointer to the IEEE document. > > > > Bert > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > >> FYI. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> > > >> Dan > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > >> > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force, > > >> > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved as > an > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of you for > > your work on this project. > > >> > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the June > > IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > >> > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in conjunction > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to plan > > our work for the revision project. > > >> > > >> Howard Frazier > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > >> To: Howard Frazier > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > >> > > >> Hi Howard, > > >> > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. > > >> > > >> Congratulations!! > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> David > > >> _______________________________________ > > >> > > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > >> To: Law, David > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > thompson@ieee.org > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > >> > > >> > > >> 17 May 2011 > > >> > > >> David Law > > >> HP Ltd. > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > > >> Scotland > > >> > > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > >> > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management Information > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > >> Dear David, > > >> > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of the > > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications Department. > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > >> > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of approval > by > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > > administrative withdrawal. > > >> > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right to > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on this > > process: > > >> > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > >> > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > >> > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to speaking with > > your editor. > > >> > > >> Sincerely, > > >> ************************************************ > > >> Karen M. Evangelista > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > > >> 445 Hoes Lane > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > >> ************************************************* > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Hubmib mailing list > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > From bertietf@bwijnen.net Mon Jul 18 13:28:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA09D21F8AF2 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:28:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.038 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VdPtonLWA4HU for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay61.tele2.vuurwerk.nl (relay61.tele2.vuurwerk.nl [62.250.3.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A0921F89CC for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [87.215.199.34] (helo=BertLaptop) by relay.indetel.net with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QiuQ7-0000LY-8d; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:28:03 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , "C. M. Heard" References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:26:07 +0200 Organization: Consultant MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 Cc: Hubmib , David B Harrington Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:28:15 -0000 Well, my proposal then would be that we write a 1-2 page informational RFC that explains that the new IEEE modules are the newer modules and should be used. The new RFC that we write then obsoletes the IETF MIB RFCs. So they do not become historic, but they get obsoleted bij an informational (or BCP if that is better) RFC document that explains why and points to the new current IEEE MIB modules. Bert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" ; "C. M. Heard" Cc: "Hubmib" ; "David B Harrington" Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:34 PM Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification > > > Hi, > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of a > non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather new. I see > that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when work was transferred > to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who wrote RFC 4663. > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these RFCs, > not about changing their status to Historic (for which the procedure is > described by an IESG statement - > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html) > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen >> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM >> To: C. M. Heard >> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib >> Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 >> ApprovalNotification >> >> On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: >> > Dan, >> > >> > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it >> > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC 2108, >> > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and RFC >> > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-data >> > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std >> > 802.3.1? >> >> Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, do you >> know. >> >> If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the listed >> RFCs with a >> pointer to the IEEE document. >> >> Bert >> > >> > Mike Heard >> > >> > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> >> FYI. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] >> >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM >> >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification >> >> >> >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force, >> >> >> >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management >> Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved as > an >> IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of you for >> your work on this project. >> >> >> >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the June >> IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. >> >> >> >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in conjunction >> with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to plan >> our work for the revision project. >> >> >> >> Howard Frazier >> >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] >> >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM >> >> To: Howard Frazier >> >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification >> >> >> >> Hi Howard, >> >> >> >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. >> >> >> >> Congratulations!! >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> David >> >> _______________________________________ >> >> >> >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] >> >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 >> >> To: Law, David >> >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; >> thompson@ieee.org >> >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification >> >> >> >> >> >> 17 May 2011 >> >> >> >> David Law >> >> HP Ltd. >> >> 20 Clayknowes Ave >> >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR >> >> Scotland >> >> >> >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair >> >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager >> >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing >> >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter >> >> >> >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management Information >> Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet >> >> Dear David, >> >> >> >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new >> standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of the >> document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications Department. >> The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. >> >> >> >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of approval > by >> the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, >> reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be >> notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for >> administrative withdrawal. >> >> >> >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right to >> appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on this >> process: >> >> >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ >> >> >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ >> >> >> >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to speaking with >> your editor. >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> ************************************************ >> >> Karen M. Evangelista >> >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator >> >> IEEE Standards Activities Department >> >> 445 Hoes Lane >> >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA >> >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 >> >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 >> >> k.evangelista@ieee.org >> >> ************************************************* >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Hubmib mailing list >> >> Hubmib@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hubmib mailing list >> Hubmib@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > _______________________________________________ > Hubmib mailing list > Hubmib@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Jul 18 13:38:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1047D21F8B27 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:38:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f3ioz2cHjbA7 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24DF21F8B03 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:38:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuUAAFKYJE7GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABNBpg4j0J3sGYCm1yDPYIgXwSYBIMKiC8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,223,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="291437881" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2011 16:38:56 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2011 16:37:01 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:38:53 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification Thread-Index: AcxFiTbWX6/7mkFsSJumDRZonTb+JAAAJ3kw References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" , "C. M. Heard" Cc: Hubmib , David B Harrington Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:38:59 -0000 Hi Bert,=20 I thought that we can avoid the writing of such an RFC for the transition of the Ethernet MIB documents to IEEE 802.3, as we already approved the transition process within the IESG, and the IEEE 802.3 have completed the first phase of the work. Would you or somebody else object to having the IESG approve marking the IETF RFCs as 'obsolete' and pointing to the IEEE 802.3 in the meta-data or you do believe that we must have this information in an RFC and run this through a consensus process which is broader than the IESG?=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:26 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); C. M. Heard > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1- > 2011ApprovalNotification >=20 > Well, my proposal then would be that we write a 1-2 page informational > RFC that > explains that the new IEEE modules are the newer modules and should be > used. > The new RFC that we write then obsoletes the IETF MIB RFCs. So they > do not become historic, but they get obsoleted bij an informational > (or BCP if that is better) RFC document that explains why and points to > the new current IEEE MIB modules. >=20 > Bert > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" > To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" ; "C. M. Heard" > > Cc: "Hubmib" ; "David B Harrington" > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:34 PM > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1- > 2011ApprovalNotification >=20 >=20 > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of a > > non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather new. I > see > > that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when work was > transferred > > to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who wrote RFC 4663. > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these RFCs, > > not about changing their status to Historic (for which the procedure > is > > described by an IESG statement - > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html) > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > >> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > >> To: C. M. Heard > >> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > >> Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > >> ApprovalNotification > >> > >> On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > >> > Dan, > >> > > >> > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it > >> > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC 2108, > >> > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and > RFC > >> > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-data > >> > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > >> > 802.3.1? > >> > >> Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, do > you > >> know. > >> > >> If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the > listed > >> RFCs with a > >> pointer to the IEEE document. > >> > >> Bert > >> > > >> > Mike Heard > >> > > >> > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > >> >> FYI. > >> >> > >> >> Regards, > >> >> > >> >> Dan > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > >> >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > >> >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > >> >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> >> > >> >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force, > >> >> > >> >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > >> Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved as > > an > >> IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of you > for > >> your work on this project. > >> >> > >> >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the > June > >> IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > >> >> > >> >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in > conjunction > >> with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to plan > >> our work for the revision project. > >> >> > >> >> Howard Frazier > >> >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > >> >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > >> >> To: Howard Frazier > >> >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> >> > >> >> Hi Howard, > >> >> > >> >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. > >> >> > >> >> Congratulations!! > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> David > >> >> _______________________________________ > >> >> > >> >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > >> >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > >> >> To: Law, David > >> >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > >> thompson@ieee.org > >> >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 17 May 2011 > >> >> > >> >> David Law > >> >> HP Ltd. > >> >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > >> >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > >> >> Scotland > >> >> > >> >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > >> >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > >> >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > >> >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > >> >> > >> >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management Information > >> Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > >> >> Dear David, > >> >> > >> >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new > >> standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of > the > >> document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications Department. > >> The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > >> >> > >> >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of approval > > by > >> the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > >> reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be > >> notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > >> administrative withdrawal. > >> >> > >> >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right to > >> appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on > this > >> process: > >> >> > >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > >> >> > >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > >> >> > >> >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to speaking > with > >> your editor. > >> >> > >> >> Sincerely, > >> >> ************************************************ > >> >> Karen M. Evangelista > >> >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > >> >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > >> >> 445 Hoes Lane > >> >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > >> >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > >> >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > >> >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > >> >> ************************************************* > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Hubmib mailing list > >> >> Hubmib@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Hubmib mailing list > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > _______________________________________________ > > Hubmib mailing list > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib From bertietf@bwijnen.net Mon Jul 18 13:44:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FBB321F8669 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:44:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.193 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.193 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DU+mgdAJM00T for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay61.tele2.vuurwerk.nl (relay61.tele2.vuurwerk.nl [62.250.3.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1512921F84FB for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [87.215.199.34] (helo=BertLaptop) by relay.indetel.net with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qiug1-000193-86; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:44:29 +0200 Message-ID: <4382E78B04A64E5FA6183C7A14B61633@BertLaptop> From: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , "C. M. Heard" References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:44:26 +0200 Organization: Consultant MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 Cc: Hubmib , David B Harrington Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:44:33 -0000 If you can do it that way, then that would be fine with me. It would be less work (supposedly). Bert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" ; "C. M. Heard" Cc: "Hubmib" ; "David B Harrington" Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:38 PM Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification Hi Bert, I thought that we can avoid the writing of such an RFC for the transition of the Ethernet MIB documents to IEEE 802.3, as we already approved the transition process within the IESG, and the IEEE 802.3 have completed the first phase of the work. Would you or somebody else object to having the IESG approve marking the IETF RFCs as 'obsolete' and pointing to the IEEE 802.3 in the meta-data or you do believe that we must have this information in an RFC and run this through a consensus process which is broader than the IESG? Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:26 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); C. M. Heard > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1- > 2011ApprovalNotification > > Well, my proposal then would be that we write a 1-2 page informational > RFC that > explains that the new IEEE modules are the newer modules and should be > used. > The new RFC that we write then obsoletes the IETF MIB RFCs. So they > do not become historic, but they get obsoleted bij an informational > (or BCP if that is better) RFC document that explains why and points to > the new current IEEE MIB modules. > > Bert > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" > To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" ; "C. M. Heard" > > Cc: "Hubmib" ; "David B Harrington" > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:34 PM > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1- > 2011ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of a > > non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather new. I > see > > that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when work was > transferred > > to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who wrote RFC 4663. > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these RFCs, > > not about changing their status to Historic (for which the procedure > is > > described by an IESG statement - > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html) > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > >> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > >> To: C. M. Heard > >> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > >> Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > >> ApprovalNotification > >> > >> On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > >> > Dan, > >> > > >> > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it > >> > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC 2108, > >> > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and > RFC > >> > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-data > >> > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > >> > 802.3.1? > >> > >> Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, do > you > >> know. > >> > >> If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the > listed > >> RFCs with a > >> pointer to the IEEE document. > >> > >> Bert > >> > > >> > Mike Heard > >> > > >> > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > >> >> FYI. > >> >> > >> >> Regards, > >> >> > >> >> Dan > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > >> >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > >> >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > >> >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> >> > >> >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force, > >> >> > >> >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > >> Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved as > > an > >> IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of you > for > >> your work on this project. > >> >> > >> >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the > June > >> IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > >> >> > >> >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in > conjunction > >> with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to plan > >> our work for the revision project. > >> >> > >> >> Howard Frazier > >> >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > >> >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > >> >> To: Howard Frazier > >> >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> >> > >> >> Hi Howard, > >> >> > >> >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. > >> >> > >> >> Congratulations!! > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> David > >> >> _______________________________________ > >> >> > >> >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > >> >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > >> >> To: Law, David > >> >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > >> thompson@ieee.org > >> >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 17 May 2011 > >> >> > >> >> David Law > >> >> HP Ltd. > >> >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > >> >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > >> >> Scotland > >> >> > >> >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > >> >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > >> >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > >> >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > >> >> > >> >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management Information > >> Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > >> >> Dear David, > >> >> > >> >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new > >> standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of > the > >> document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications Department. > >> The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > >> >> > >> >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of approval > > by > >> the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > >> reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be > >> notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > >> administrative withdrawal. > >> >> > >> >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right to > >> appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on > this > >> process: > >> >> > >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > >> >> > >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > >> >> > >> >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to speaking > with > >> your editor. > >> >> > >> >> Sincerely, > >> >> ************************************************ > >> >> Karen M. Evangelista > >> >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > >> >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > >> >> 445 Hoes Lane > >> >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > >> >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > >> >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > >> >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > >> >> ************************************************* > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Hubmib mailing list > >> >> Hubmib@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Hubmib mailing list > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > _______________________________________________ > > Hubmib mailing list > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib From glenn.parsons@ericsson.com Mon Jul 18 15:42:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB7821F86BB for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:42:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7c5-0uZAA49n for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B5421F8428 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p6IMgDv2026613; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:42:32 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0714.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.220]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:42:20 -0400 From: Glenn Parsons To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" , "C. M. Heard" Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:42:19 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification Thread-Index: AcxFiTbWX6/7mkFsSJumDRZonTb+JAAAJ3kwAAPchiA= Message-ID: References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Hubmib , David B Harrington Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:42:53 -0000 Dan, We did not discuss this option for the 802.1 MIBs at the time, even though = that was the general intent. =20 The view was that if someone wanted to implement a simple bridge, they coul= d use the IETF MIBs (in RFC 4188, 4318 & 4363). As a result we imported some definitions from the IETF BRIDGE-MIB and Q-BRI= DGE-MIB instead of redefining them. Given this, is making the IETF Bridge MIBs obsolete appropriate? For 802.3, I don't think there are any imports from the IETF MIBS, so this = would be cleaner. Cheers, Glenn. -----Original Message----- From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Sent: July-18-11 4:39 PM To: Bert Wijnen (IETF); C. M. Heard Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotificati= on Hi Bert,=20 I thought that we can avoid the writing of such an RFC for the transition o= f the Ethernet MIB documents to IEEE 802.3, as we already approved the tran= sition process within the IESG, and the IEEE 802.3 have completed the first= phase of the work. Would you or somebody else object to having the IESG ap= prove marking the IETF RFCs as 'obsolete' and pointing to the IEEE 802.3 in= the meta-data or you do believe that we must have this information in an R= FC and run this through a consensus process which is broader than the IESG?= =20 Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:26 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); C. M. Heard > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-=20 > 2011ApprovalNotification >=20 > Well, my proposal then would be that we write a 1-2 page informational=20 > RFC that explains that the new IEEE modules are the newer modules and=20 > should be used. > The new RFC that we write then obsoletes the IETF MIB RFCs. So they do=20 > not become historic, but they get obsoleted bij an informational (or=20 > BCP if that is better) RFC document that explains why and points to > the new current IEEE MIB modules. >=20 > Bert > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" > To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" ; "C. M. Heard" > > Cc: "Hubmib" ; "David B Harrington" > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:34 PM > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-=20 > 2011ApprovalNotification >=20 >=20 > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of a=20 > > non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather new. I > see > > that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when work was > transferred > > to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who wrote RFC 4663. > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these RFCs, > > not about changing their status to Historic (for which the procedure > is > > described by an IESG statement - > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html) > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > >> Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > >> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > >> To: C. M. Heard > >> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > >> Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011=20 > >> ApprovalNotification > >> > >> On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > >> > Dan, > >> > > >> > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it=20 > >> > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC 2108,=20 > >> > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and > RFC > >> > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-data > >> > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std=20 > >> > 802.3.1? > >> > >> Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, do > you > >> know. > >> > >> If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the > listed > >> RFCs with a > >> pointer to the IEEE document. > >> > >> Bert > >> > > >> > Mike Heard > >> > > >> > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > >> >> FYI. > >> >> > >> >> Regards, > >> >> > >> >> Dan > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > >> >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > >> >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > >> >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> >> > >> >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force, > >> >> > >> >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > >> Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved as > > an > >> IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of you > for > >> your work on this project. > >> >> > >> >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the > June > >> IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > >> >> > >> >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in > conjunction > >> with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to plan > >> our work for the revision project. > >> >> > >> >> Howard Frazier > >> >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > >> >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > >> >> To: Howard Frazier > >> >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> >> > >> >> Hi Howard, > >> >> > >> >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. > >> >> > >> >> Congratulations!! > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> David > >> >> _______________________________________ > >> >> > >> >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > >> >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > >> >> To: Law, David > >> >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > >> thompson@ieee.org > >> >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 17 May 2011 > >> >> > >> >> David Law > >> >> HP Ltd. > >> >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > >> >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR Scotland > >> >> > >> >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > >> >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > >> >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > >> >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > >> >> > >> >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management Information > >> Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > >> >> Dear David, > >> >> > >> >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new > >> standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of > the > >> document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications Department. > >> The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > >> >> > >> >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of approval > > by > >> the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised,=20 > >> reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be=20 > >> notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for=20 > >> administrative withdrawal. > >> >> > >> >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right to > >> appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on > this > >> process: > >> >> > >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > >> >> > >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > >> >> > >> >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to speaking > with > >> your editor. > >> >> > >> >> Sincerely, > >> >> ************************************************ > >> >> Karen M. Evangelista > >> >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator IEEE Standards Activities=20 > >> >> Department > >> >> 445 Hoes Lane > >> >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > >> >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > >> >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > >> >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > >> >> ************************************************* > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Hubmib mailing list > >> >> Hubmib@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Hubmib mailing list > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > _______________________________________________ > > Hubmib mailing list > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib _______________________________________________ Hubmib mailing list Hubmib@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Jul 18 16:13:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8912F21F87ED for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:13:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.295 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.304, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VaUW79NQAxOR for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B75221F8784 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:13:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuAAAOC8JE7GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABNBpgGj0R3sRcCm2GDPYIgXwSYBIMLiC8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,225,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="291463609" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2011 19:13:28 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2011 19:11:33 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:13:24 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification Thread-Index: AcxFiTbWX6/7mkFsSJumDRZonTb+JAAAJ3kwAAPchiAAAa2QkA== References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Glenn Parsons" , "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" , "C. M. Heard" Cc: Hubmib , David B Harrington Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:13:33 -0000 Hi Glenn,=20 Thanks for reminding one important reason for not making the IETF Bridge MIBs obsolete.=20 There is no intention to change this, at least AFAIK.=20 Regards, Dan=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Glenn Parsons [mailto:glenn.parsons@ericsson.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 1:42 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Bert Wijnen (IETF); C. M. Heard > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1- > 2011ApprovalNotification >=20 > Dan, >=20 > We did not discuss this option for the 802.1 MIBs at the time, even > though that was the general intent. >=20 > The view was that if someone wanted to implement a simple bridge, they > could use the IETF MIBs (in RFC 4188, 4318 & 4363). >=20 > As a result we imported some definitions from the IETF BRIDGE-MIB and > Q-BRIDGE-MIB instead of redefining them. >=20 > Given this, is making the IETF Bridge MIBs obsolete appropriate? >=20 > For 802.3, I don't think there are any imports from the IETF MIBS, so > this would be cleaner. >=20 > Cheers, > Glenn. >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Sent: July-18-11 4:39 PM > To: Bert Wijnen (IETF); C. M. Heard > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1- > 2011ApprovalNotification >=20 >=20 >=20 > Hi Bert, >=20 > I thought that we can avoid the writing of such an RFC for the > transition of the Ethernet MIB documents to IEEE 802.3, as we already > approved the transition process within the IESG, and the IEEE 802.3 > have completed the first phase of the work. Would you or somebody else > object to having the IESG approve marking the IETF RFCs as 'obsolete' > and pointing to the IEEE 802.3 in the meta-data or you do believe that > we must have this information in an RFC and run this through a > consensus process which is broader than the IESG? >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net] > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:26 PM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); C. M. Heard > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1- > > 2011ApprovalNotification > > > > Well, my proposal then would be that we write a 1-2 page > informational > > RFC that explains that the new IEEE modules are the newer modules and > > should be used. > > The new RFC that we write then obsoletes the IETF MIB RFCs. So they > do > > not become historic, but they get obsoleted bij an informational (or > > BCP if that is better) RFC document that explains why and points > to > > the new current IEEE MIB modules. > > > > Bert > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" > > To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" ; "C. M. Heard" > > > > Cc: "Hubmib" ; "David B Harrington" > > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:34 PM > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1- > > 2011ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of a > > > non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather new. I > > see > > > that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when work was > > transferred > > > to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who wrote RFC 4663. > > > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these > RFCs, > > > not about changing their status to Historic (for which the > procedure > > is > > > described by an IESG statement - > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html) > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > > >> Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > >> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > >> To: C. M. Heard > > >> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > >> Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > >> ApprovalNotification > > >> > > >> On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > >> > Dan, > > >> > > > >> > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it > > >> > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC > 2108, > > >> > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and > > RFC > > >> > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the > meta-data > > >> > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > > >> > 802.3.1? > > >> > > >> Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, do > > you > > >> know. > > >> > > >> If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the > > listed > > >> RFCs with a > > >> pointer to the IEEE document. > > >> > > >> Bert > > >> > > > >> > Mike Heard > > >> > > > >> > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > >> >> FYI. > > >> >> > > >> >> Regards, > > >> >> > > >> >> Dan > > >> >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > > >> >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > >> >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > >> >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > >> >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > >> >> > > >> >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task > Force, > > >> >> > > >> >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > > >> Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved > as > > > an > > >> IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of you > > for > > >> your work on this project. > > >> >> > > >> >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the > > June > > >> IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > >> >> > > >> >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in > > conjunction > > >> with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to > plan > > >> our work for the revision project. > > >> >> > > >> >> Howard Frazier > > >> >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > >> >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > > >> >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > >> >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > >> >> To: Howard Frazier > > >> >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > >> >> > > >> >> Hi Howard, > > >> >> > > >> >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. > > >> >> > > >> >> Congratulations!! > > >> >> > > >> >> Best regards, > > >> >> David > > >> >> _______________________________________ > > >> >> > > >> >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > >> >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > >> >> To: Law, David > > >> >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > > > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > >> thompson@ieee.org > > >> >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> 17 May 2011 > > >> >> > > >> >> David Law > > >> >> HP Ltd. > > >> >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > >> >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR Scotland > > >> >> > > >> >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > >> >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > >> >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > > >> >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > >> >> > > >> >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management > Information > > >> Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > >> >> Dear David, > > >> >> > > >> >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new > > >> standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of > > the > > >> document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications > Department. > > >> The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > >> >> > > >> >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of > approval > > > by > > >> the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > > >> reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be > > >> notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > > >> administrative withdrawal. > > >> >> > > >> >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right > to > > >> appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on > > this > > >> process: > > >> >> > > >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > >> >> > > >> >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > >> >> > > >> >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to speaking > > with > > >> your editor. > > >> >> > > >> >> Sincerely, > > >> >> ************************************************ > > >> >> Karen M. Evangelista > > >> >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator IEEE Standards Activities > > >> >> Department > > >> >> 445 Hoes Lane > > >> >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > >> >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > >> >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > >> >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > >> >> ************************************************* > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > > >> >> Hubmib mailing list > > >> >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Hubmib mailing list > > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Hubmib mailing list > Hubmib@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib From ietfdbh@comcast.net Mon Jul 18 21:51:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B375D21F86AB for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:51:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.473 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qYIYw730ZBwx for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49ADE21F8582 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 9grc1h0031wpRvQ5FgrcRp; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 04:51:36 +0000 Received: from davidPC ([67.189.235.106]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 9gra1h00Q2JQnJT3egraCq; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 04:51:35 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" , "'Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen'" , "'C. M. Heard'" References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:51:24 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcxEv4AgiLur4hjvTfCftDsoIozQXAAwUQrQABNhYUA= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.17609 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:34:22 -0700 Cc: 'Hubmib' Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 04:51:44 -0000 Hi, As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the IETF Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be obsolete or historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue to be valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF standards. IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in ways that were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying indexes to existing tables in order to support per-provider(?) discriminators. IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise environments, and many of those environments had no desire to move to the per-provider approach that was/is important to service providers. Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid option addressed this difference in perspective. I suppose one could draw a parallel with the RADIUS/Diameter split and co-existence for different environments. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > ApprovalNotification > > > > Hi, > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of a > non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather new. I see > that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when work was > transferred > to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who wrote RFC 4663. > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these RFCs, > not about changing their status to Historic (for which the > procedure is > described by an IESG statement - > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html) > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > To: C. M. Heard > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > ApprovalNotification > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > > Dan, > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC 2108, > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC > 4878, and RFC > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-data > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > > > 802.3.1? > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. > Dan, do you > > know. > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes > the listed > > RFCs with a > > pointer to the IEEE document. > > > > Bert > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > >> FYI. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> > > >> Dan > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > >> > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force, > > >> > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved as > an > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all > of you for > > your work on this project. > > >> > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda > for the June > > IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > >> > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in > conjunction > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to plan > > our work for the revision project. > > >> > > >> Howard Frazier > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > >> To: Howard Frazier > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > >> > > >> Hi Howard, > > >> > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. > > >> > > >> Congratulations!! > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> David > > >> _______________________________________ > > >> > > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > >> To: Law, David > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > thompson@ieee.org > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > >> > > >> > > >> 17 May 2011 > > >> > > >> David Law > > >> HP Ltd. > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > > >> Scotland > > >> > > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > >> > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management Information > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > >> Dear David, > > >> > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A > copy of the > > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications Department. > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > >> > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of approval > by > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > > administrative withdrawal. > > >> > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right to > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for > information on this > > process: > > >> > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > >> > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > >> > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to > speaking with > > your editor. > > >> > > >> Sincerely, > > >> ************************************************ > > >> Karen M. Evangelista > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > > >> 445 Hoes Lane > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > >> ************************************************* > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Hubmib mailing list > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > From heard@pobox.com Tue Jul 19 13:37:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8DE21F88DC for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:37:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vZHwggyXQ-Td for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B81721F88B6 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 10752 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2011 13:37:16 -0700 Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 19 Jul 2011 13:37:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:37:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "C. M. Heard" X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Hubmib , David Harrington , "Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen" Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:37:23 -0000 Greetings, David Harrington and Glenn Parsons both provide good reasons why the status of the IETF Bridge MIB modules should remain unchanged. My question, however, concerned the Ethernet-related MIB modules in RFCs 2108, 3621, 3635, 3637, 4836, 4837, 4878, and 5066. The situation for those is different. New versions (rooted under different OIDs) have been published in IEEE Std 802.3.1, and the overview section of that document says that it "supersedes and makes obsolete" those RFCs. Mike Heard On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, David Harrington wrote: > Hi, > > As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the IETF > Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be obsolete or > historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue to be > valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF standards. > > IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in ways that > were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying indexes to > existing tables in order to support per-provider(?) discriminators. > IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise environments, > and many of those environments had no desire to move to the > per-provider approach that was/is important to service providers. > > Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid option > addressed this difference in perspective. > > I suppose one could draw a parallel with the RADIUS/Diameter split and > co-existence for different environments. > > dbh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM > > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of > > a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather > > new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when > > work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who > > wrote RFC 4663. > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these > > RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for which the > > procedure is described by an IESG statement - > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html) > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > > To: C. M. Heard > > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it > > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC 2108, > > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and RFC > > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta-data > > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > > > > 802.3.1? > > > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, do you > > > know. > > > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the listed > > > RFCs with a > > > pointer to the IEEE document. > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > >> FYI. > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> > > > >> Dan > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > >> > > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force, > > > >> > > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved as an > > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of you for > > > your work on this project. > > > >> > > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > > >> > > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in conjunction > > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to plan > > > our work for the revision project. > > > >> > > > >> Howard Frazier > > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > > >> To: Howard Frazier > > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > >> > > > >> Hi Howard, > > > >> > > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. > > > >> > > > >> Congratulations!! > > > >> > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> David > > > >> _______________________________________ > > > >> > > > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > > >> To: Law, David > > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > > thompson@ieee.org > > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 17 May 2011 > > > >> > > > >> David Law > > > >> HP Ltd. > > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > > > >> Scotland > > > >> > > > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > > > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > > >> > > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management Information > > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > > >> Dear David, > > > >> > > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new > > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of the > > > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications Department. > > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > > >> > > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of approval by > > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be > > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > > > administrative withdrawal. > > > >> > > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right to > > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on this > > > process: > > > >> > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > > >> > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > > >> > > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to > > speaking with > > > your editor. > > > >> > > > >> Sincerely, > > > >> ************************************************ > > > >> Karen M. Evangelista > > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > > > >> 445 Hoes Lane > > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > > >> ************************************************* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Hubmib mailing list > > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Jul 19 14:53:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C3121F8563 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:53:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.272, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uc8kq3KJZ4-v for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925D721F8562 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:53:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuYAALH7JU6HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABOBpgOj0Z3sRcCm2+DPYIgXwSYCoMLiC8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,230,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="291703179" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 17:53:56 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 17:46:40 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:53:52 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification Thread-Index: AcxGU6gKvxZBCMOjTeWf+y0XpHMgkQACh/bg References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "C. M. Heard" Cc: Hubmib , David Harrington , "Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen" Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:53:58 -0000 Hi Mike,=20 I think that everybody who expressed opinions in this thread agreed with your suggestion to mark the said RFCs as Obsoleted by IEEE 802.3.1 ... We also seem to agree that if possible we would do it by an IESG decision, avoiding the extra cost of writing an RFC. I am not sure yet that the IESG will accept this proposal, and I hesitate to run it in the busy week before the IETF meeting.=20 Question - do we need to run this beyond the hubmib list? A one-slide presentation in the OPSAREA meeting for example?=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:37 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > ApprovalNotification >=20 > Greetings, >=20 > David Harrington and Glenn Parsons both provide good reasons why the > status of the IETF Bridge MIB modules should remain unchanged. >=20 > My question, however, concerned the Ethernet-related MIB modules in > RFCs 2108, 3621, 3635, 3637, 4836, 4837, 4878, and 5066. The > situation for those is different. New versions (rooted under > different OIDs) have been published in IEEE Std 802.3.1, and the > overview section of that document says that it "supersedes and makes > obsolete" those RFCs. >=20 > Mike Heard >=20 > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, David Harrington wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the IETF > > Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be obsolete or > > historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue to be > > valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF standards. > > > > IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in ways that > > were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying indexes to > > existing tables in order to support per-provider(?) discriminators. > > IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise > environments, > > and many of those environments had no desire to move to the > > per-provider approach that was/is important to service providers. > > > > Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid option > > addressed this difference in perspective. > > > > I suppose one could draw a parallel with the RADIUS/Diameter split > and > > co-existence for different environments. > > > > dbh > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM > > > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard > > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of > > > a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather > > > new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when > > > work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who > > > wrote RFC 4663. > > > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these > > > RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for which the > > > procedure is described by an IESG statement - > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as- > historic.html) > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > > > To: C. M. Heard > > > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since it > > > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC > 2108, > > > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, and > RFC > > > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta- > data > > > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > > > > > 802.3.1? > > > > > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, > do you > > > > know. > > > > > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the > listed > > > > RFCs with a > > > > pointer to the IEEE document. > > > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > >> FYI. > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards, > > > > >> > > > > >> Dan > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > >> > > > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task > Force, > > > > >> > > > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > > > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been approved > as an > > > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of > you for > > > > your work on this project. > > > > >> > > > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the > June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > > > >> > > > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in > conjunction > > > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to > plan > > > > our work for the revision project. > > > > >> > > > > >> Howard Frazier > > > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > > > >> To: Howard Frazier > > > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi Howard, > > > > >> > > > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval notification. > > > > >> > > > > >> Congratulations!! > > > > >> > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > >> David > > > > >> _______________________________________ > > > > >> > > > > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > > > >> To: Law, David > > > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > > > thompson@ieee.org > > > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> 17 May 2011 > > > > >> > > > > >> David Law > > > > >> HP Ltd. > > > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > > > > >> Scotland > > > > >> > > > > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > > > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > > > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > > > > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > > > >> > > > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management > Information > > > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > > > >> Dear David, > > > > >> > > > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a new > > > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy of > the > > > > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications > Department. > > > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > > > >> > > > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of > approval by > > > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > > > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be > > > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > > > > administrative withdrawal. > > > > >> > > > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right > to > > > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information on > this > > > > process: > > > > >> > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > > > >> > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > > > >> > > > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to > > > speaking with > > > > your editor. > > > > >> > > > > >> Sincerely, > > > > >> ************************************************ > > > > >> Karen M. Evangelista > > > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > > > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > > > > >> 445 Hoes Lane > > > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > > > >> ************************************************* > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Hubmib mailing list > > > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Jul 19 15:31:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DDF421F84C5 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.331 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.268, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qw5BmJ-HCnvE for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B756611E8095 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:31:06 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuYAAM0EJk6HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABOBpgSj0Z3sR4Cm3ODPYIgXwSYCoMLiC8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,230,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="257488774" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 18:31:04 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 18:23:37 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:30:49 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification Thread-Index: AcxGU6a0iWwSV3gqR861MY/buDrajAABVsoQAAJ2NPA= References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "David Harrington" , "C. M. Heard" Cc: Hubmib , "Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen" Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:31:11 -0000 Hi,=20 I think that the situation with the Ethernet MIB modules is somehow different from the one with the Bridge modules on this respect. The Ethernet MIB modules laready covered some of the SP space when Ethernet started to propagate in the Metro and WAN applications. There is no clear separation and what IEEE 802.3 continues the work in the IETF. Actually the first set of MIB modules issued by IEEE 802.3.1 changes little in the MIB modules structure beyond moving their root under IEEE control and extending the range of supported PHYs and MAUs.=20 I may not know all that is happening and I am ready to stand corrected if I am missing information. As I am at the IEEE 802 meeting this week I will try to learn more on the IEEE 802.3 side.=20 Regards, Dan=20 (speaking as contributor) > -----Original Message----- > From: David Harrington [mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:09 AM > To: 'C. M. Heard'; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: 'Bert (IETF) Wijnen'; 'Hubmib' > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > ApprovalNotification >=20 > Hi, >=20 > My question is: > Is there a separate community (e.g., enterprise vs service providers) > for whom the IETF MIB modules make sense, and for whom updating to the > IEEE MIB modules is not warranted? If so, you might want to keep the > IETF standard separate from the IEEE standard (but not progress the > IETF standard). >=20 > dbh >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:37 PM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > ApprovalNotification > > > > Greetings, > > > > David Harrington and Glenn Parsons both provide good reasons why the >=20 > > status of the IETF Bridge MIB modules should remain unchanged. > > > > My question, however, concerned the Ethernet-related MIB modules in > > RFCs 2108, 3621, 3635, 3637, 4836, 4837, 4878, and 5066. The > > situation for those is different. New versions (rooted under > > different OIDs) have been published in IEEE Std 802.3.1, and the > > overview section of that document says that it "supersedes and makes >=20 > > obsolete" those RFCs. > > > > Mike Heard > > > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, David Harrington wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the IETF > > > Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be obsolete > or > > > historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue to be > > > valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF standards. > > > > > > IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in ways > that > > > were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying indexes > to > > > existing tables in order to support per-provider(?) > discriminators. > > > IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise > > environments, > > > and many of those environments had no desire to move to the > > > per-provider approach that was/is important to service providers. > > > > > > Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid option > > > addressed this difference in perspective. > > > > > > I suppose one could draw a parallel with the > > RADIUS/Diameter split and > > > co-existence for different environments. > > > > > > dbh > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM > > > > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard > > > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of > > > > a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather > > > > new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when > > > > work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who > > > > wrote RFC 4663. > > > > > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these > > > > RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for which the >=20 > > > > procedure is described by an IESG statement - > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html) > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org > > [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > > > > To: C. M. Heard > > > > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > > > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. > > Since it > > > > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined > > in RFC 2108, > > > > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC > > 4878, and RFC > > > > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for > > the meta-data > > > > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE > Std > > > > > > 802.3.1? > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies > > this. Dan, do you > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that > > obsoletes the listed > > > > > RFCs with a > > > > > pointer to the IEEE document. > > > > > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > > >> FYI. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dan > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > > > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > > > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval > > Notification > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB > > modules Task Force, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for > Management > > > > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has > > been approved as an > > > > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to > > all of you for > > > > > your work on this project. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the > > agenda for the June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon > > in conjunction > > > > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline > > Village, NV, to plan > > > > > our work for the revision project. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Howard Frazier > > > > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > > > > >> To: Howard Frazier > > > > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi Howard, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval > > notification. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Congratulations!! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > >> David > > > > > >> _______________________________________ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org > [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > > > > >> To: Law, David > > > > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > > > > thompson@ieee.org > > > > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 17 May 2011 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> David Law > > > > > >> HP Ltd. > > > > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > > > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > > > > > >> Scotland > > > > > >> > > > > > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > > > > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > > > > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards > Publishing > > > > > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > > > > >> > > > > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management > > Information > > > > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > > > > >> Dear David, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was > > approved as a new > > > > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. > > A copy of the > > > > > document will be forwarded to the Standards > > Publications Department. > > > > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five > > years of approval by > > > > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > > > > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will > be > > > > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > > > > > administrative withdrawal. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have > > the right to > > > > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for > > information on this > > > > > process: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to > > > > speaking with > > > > > your editor. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sincerely, > > > > > >> ************************************************ > > > > > >> Karen M. Evangelista > > > > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > > > > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > > > > > >> 445 Hoes Lane > > > > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > > > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > > > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > > > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > > > > >> ************************************************* > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > > > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Hubmib mailing list > > > > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > > From heard@pobox.com Tue Jul 19 18:08:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69824228006 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:08:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e0bZh1xbC4MA for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8413221F8AD2 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 6257 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2011 18:08:40 -0700 Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 19 Jul 2011 18:08:40 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:08:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "C. M. Heard" X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Hubmib , David Harrington , "Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen" Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:08:45 -0000 Dan, Waiting until after the IETF meeting to run the proposal past the IESG sounds quite reasonable. If the IESG is open to the proposal, it seems to me that a widely-announced IETF last-call should suffice. My suggestion would be to cc: the last call announcement to the hubmib, ietfmibs, ops-area, and (possibly) opsawg lists (besides of course ietf-announce, where all such things appear). Thanks Mike On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I think that everybody who expressed opinions in this thread agreed with > your suggestion to mark the said RFCs as Obsoleted by IEEE 802.3.1 ... > We also seem to agree that if possible we would do it by an IESG > decision, avoiding the extra cost of writing an RFC. I am not sure yet > that the IESG will accept this proposal, and I hesitate to run it in the > busy week before the IETF meeting. > > Question - do we need to run this beyond the hubmib list? A one-slide > presentation in the OPSAREA meeting for example? > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:37 PM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > ApprovalNotification > > > > Greetings, > > > > David Harrington and Glenn Parsons both provide good reasons why the > > status of the IETF Bridge MIB modules should remain unchanged. > > > > My question, however, concerned the Ethernet-related MIB modules in > > RFCs 2108, 3621, 3635, 3637, 4836, 4837, 4878, and 5066. The > > situation for those is different. New versions (rooted under > > different OIDs) have been published in IEEE Std 802.3.1, and the > > overview section of that document says that it "supersedes and makes > > obsolete" those RFCs. > > > > Mike Heard > > > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, David Harrington wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the IETF > > > Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be obsolete or > > > historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue to be > > > valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF standards. > > > > > > IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in ways that > > > were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying indexes to > > > existing tables in order to support per-provider(?) discriminators. > > > IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise > > environments, > > > and many of those environments had no desire to move to the > > > per-provider approach that was/is important to service providers. > > > > > > Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid option > > > addressed this difference in perspective. > > > > > > I suppose one could draw a parallel with the RADIUS/Diameter split > > and > > > co-existence for different environments. > > > > > > dbh > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM > > > > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard > > > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of > > > > a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather > > > > new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when > > > > work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who > > > > wrote RFC 4663. > > > > > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these > > > > RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for which the > > > > procedure is described by an IESG statement - > > > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as- > > historic.html) > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] > On > > > > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > > > > To: C. M. Heard > > > > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > > > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. Since > it > > > > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC > > 2108, > > > > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, > and > > RFC > > > > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the meta- > > data > > > > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > > > > > > 802.3.1? > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. Dan, > > do you > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes the > > listed > > > > > RFCs with a > > > > > pointer to the IEEE document. > > > > > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > > >> FYI. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dan > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > > > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > > > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval > Notification > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task > > Force, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > > > > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been > approved > > as an > > > > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all of > > you for > > > > > your work on this project. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for the > > June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in > > conjunction > > > > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, to > > plan > > > > > our work for the revision project. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Howard Frazier > > > > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > > > > >> To: Howard Frazier > > > > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi Howard, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval > notification. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Congratulations!! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > >> David > > > > > >> _______________________________________ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > > > > >> To: Law, David > > > > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > > > > thompson@ieee.org > > > > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 17 May 2011 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> David Law > > > > > >> HP Ltd. > > > > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > > > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > > > > > >> Scotland > > > > > >> > > > > > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > > > > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > > > > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > > > > > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > > > > >> > > > > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management > > Information > > > > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > > > > >> Dear David, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a > new > > > > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A copy > of > > the > > > > > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications > > Department. > > > > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of > > approval by > > > > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > > > > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be > > > > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > > > > > administrative withdrawal. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the right > > to > > > > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for information > on > > this > > > > > process: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to > > > > speaking with > > > > > your editor. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sincerely, > > > > > >> ************************************************ > > > > > >> Karen M. Evangelista > > > > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > > > > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > > > > > >> 445 Hoes Lane > > > > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > > > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > > > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > > > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > > > > >> ************************************************* > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > > > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Hubmib mailing list > > > > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Jul 19 19:54:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077F821F88A6 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:54:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.335 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.264, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LkwuOgv1Sn5S for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:54:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D563221F88A1 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:54:33 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuYAAPJCJk7GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABNBpgXj0Z3iHypIgKbaoM9giBfBJgKgwuILw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,232,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="257515399" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 22:54:30 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 22:52:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 04:54:26 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification Thread-Index: AcxGeZGbZs0Abh54Sxiv4J+vzdYRfgADYfOQ References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "C. M. Heard" Cc: Hubmib , David Harrington , "Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen" Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:54:36 -0000 Hi Mike,=20 Hmmmm ... 'a widely announced IETF last call' implies writing an I-D, and probably making it an RFC. What would be last-calling? Do you think that we need an official last-call? I thought that for modifying the meta-data information for the RFCs an IESG decision would be enough. Wound a less official question asked on the lists beyond be sufficient? Frankly, if we go all the way and we write an I-D and make it an RFC (we also need a volunteer for this) I would rather go all the way and make the RFCs Historic.=20 I spoke with Howard Frazier (who is chairing the IEEE 802.3.1 effort) today. As expected he agrees with the proposal. The second phase of the MIB revision in IEEE 802.3 is already chartered and with the exception of the repeater and copper EFM MIB modules all the other MIB modules will go through changes.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:09 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > ApprovalNotification >=20 > Dan, >=20 > Waiting until after the IETF meeting to run the proposal past the > IESG sounds quite reasonable. >=20 > If the IESG is open to the proposal, it seems to me that a > widely-announced IETF last-call should suffice. My suggestion would > be to cc: the last call announcement to the hubmib, ietfmibs, > ops-area, and (possibly) opsawg lists (besides of course > ietf-announce, where all such things appear). >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Mike >=20 > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > I think that everybody who expressed opinions in this thread agreed > with > > your suggestion to mark the said RFCs as Obsoleted by IEEE 802.3.1 > ... > > We also seem to agree that if possible we would do it by an IESG > > decision, avoiding the extra cost of writing an RFC. I am not sure > yet > > that the IESG will accept this proposal, and I hesitate to run it in > the > > busy week before the IETF meeting. > > > > Question - do we need to run this beyond the hubmib list? A one-slide > > presentation in the OPSAREA meeting for example? > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:37 PM > > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > David Harrington and Glenn Parsons both provide good reasons why > the > > > status of the IETF Bridge MIB modules should remain unchanged. > > > > > > My question, however, concerned the Ethernet-related MIB modules in > > > RFCs 2108, 3621, 3635, 3637, 4836, 4837, 4878, and 5066. The > > > situation for those is different. New versions (rooted under > > > different OIDs) have been published in IEEE Std 802.3.1, and the > > > overview section of that document says that it "supersedes and > makes > > > obsolete" those RFCs. > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, David Harrington wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the > IETF > > > > Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be obsolete > or > > > > historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue to be > > > > valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF standards. > > > > > > > > IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in ways > that > > > > were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying indexes > to > > > > existing tables in order to support per-provider(?) > discriminators. > > > > IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise > > > environments, > > > > and many of those environments had no desire to move to the > > > > per-provider approach that was/is important to service providers. > > > > > > > > Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid > option > > > > addressed this difference in perspective. > > > > > > > > I suppose one could draw a parallel with the RADIUS/Diameter > split > > > and > > > > co-existence for different environments. > > > > > > > > dbh > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM > > > > > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard > > > > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > > > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of > > > > > a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather > > > > > new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when > > > > > work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who > > > > > wrote RFC 4663. > > > > > > > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these > > > > > RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for which > the > > > > > procedure is described by an IESG statement - > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as- > > > historic.html) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib- > bounces@ietf.org] > > On > > > > > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > > > > > To: C. M. Heard > > > > > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. > Since > > it > > > > > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in RFC > > > 2108, > > > > > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC 4878, > > and > > > RFC > > > > > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the > meta- > > > data > > > > > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE > Std > > > > > > > 802.3.1? > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. > Dan, > > > do you > > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes > the > > > listed > > > > > > RFCs with a > > > > > > pointer to the IEEE document. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > > > >> FYI. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Dan > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > > > > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > > > > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval > > Notification > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task > > > Force, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for > Management > > > > > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been > > approved > > > as an > > > > > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all > of > > > you for > > > > > > your work on this project. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for > the > > > June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in > > > conjunction > > > > > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, > to > > > plan > > > > > > our work for the revision project. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Howard Frazier > > > > > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > > > > > >> To: Howard Frazier > > > > > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Hi Howard, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval > > notification. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Congratulations!! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > > >> David > > > > > > >> _______________________________________ > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org > [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > > > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > > > > > >> To: Law, David > > > > > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > > > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > > > > > thompson@ieee.org > > > > > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 17 May 2011 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> David Law > > > > > > >> HP Ltd. > > > > > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > > > > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > > > > > > >> Scotland > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > > > > > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > > > > > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards > Publishing > > > > > > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management > > > Information > > > > > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > > > > > >> Dear David, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as a > > new > > > > > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A > copy > > of > > > the > > > > > > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications > > > Department. > > > > > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of > > > approval by > > > > > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > > > > > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will > be > > > > > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > > > > > > administrative withdrawal. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the > right > > > to > > > > > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for > information > > on > > > this > > > > > > process: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to > > > > > speaking with > > > > > > your editor. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Sincerely, > > > > > > >> ************************************************ > > > > > > >> Karen M. Evangelista > > > > > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > > > > > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > > > > > > >> 445 Hoes Lane > > > > > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > > > > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > > > > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > > > > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > > > > > >> ************************************************* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > > > > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Hubmib mailing list > > > > > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > > > > From heard@pobox.com Tue Jul 19 20:14:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A0BB228013 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:14:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5NmEznU4ALzF for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E597228012 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 19665 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2011 20:14:16 -0700 Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 19 Jul 2011 20:14:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:14:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "C. M. Heard" X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Hubmib , David Harrington , "Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen" Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:14:24 -0000 Dan, Sorry, my bad -- I did not mean to suggest anything heavyweight, certainly not publishing an RFC, just giving adequte notice to interested parties of the intended action. Something less official than a last call put to the relevant lists would be quite sufficient. Thanks and regards, Mike P.S. I'll be out of e-mail contact for approximately the next 10 days; I'll try to be prompt about attending to anything in the queue when I return. On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Hmmmm ... 'a widely announced IETF last call' implies writing an I-D, > and probably making it an RFC. What would be last-calling? Do you think > that we need an official last-call? I thought that for modifying the > meta-data information for the RFCs an IESG decision would be enough. > Wound a less official question asked on the lists beyond be sufficient? > Frankly, if we go all the way and we write an I-D and make it an RFC (we > also need a volunteer for this) I would rather go all the way and make > the RFCs Historic. > > I spoke with Howard Frazier (who is chairing the IEEE 802.3.1 effort) > today. As expected he agrees with the proposal. The second phase of the > MIB revision in IEEE 802.3 is already chartered and with the exception > of the repeater and copper EFM MIB modules all the other MIB modules > will go through changes. > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:09 AM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > ApprovalNotification > > > > Dan, > > > > Waiting until after the IETF meeting to run the proposal past the > > IESG sounds quite reasonable. > > > > If the IESG is open to the proposal, it seems to me that a > > widely-announced IETF last-call should suffice. My suggestion would > > be to cc: the last call announcement to the hubmib, ietfmibs, > > ops-area, and (possibly) opsawg lists (besides of course > > ietf-announce, where all such things appear). > > > > Thanks > > > > Mike > > > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > I think that everybody who expressed opinions in this thread agreed > > with > > > your suggestion to mark the said RFCs as Obsoleted by IEEE 802.3.1 > > ... > > > We also seem to agree that if possible we would do it by an IESG > > > decision, avoiding the extra cost of writing an RFC. I am not sure > > yet > > > that the IESG will accept this proposal, and I hesitate to run it in > > the > > > busy week before the IETF meeting. > > > > > > Question - do we need to run this beyond the hubmib list? A > one-slide > > > presentation in the OPSAREA meeting for example? > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:37 PM > > > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > > > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > David Harrington and Glenn Parsons both provide good reasons why > > the > > > > status of the IETF Bridge MIB modules should remain unchanged. > > > > > > > > My question, however, concerned the Ethernet-related MIB modules > in > > > > RFCs 2108, 3621, 3635, 3637, 4836, 4837, 4878, and 5066. The > > > > situation for those is different. New versions (rooted under > > > > different OIDs) have been published in IEEE Std 802.3.1, and the > > > > overview section of that document says that it "supersedes and > > makes > > > > obsolete" those RFCs. > > > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, David Harrington wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the > > IETF > > > > > Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be obsolete > > or > > > > > historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue to > be > > > > > valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF standards. > > > > > > > > > > IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in ways > > that > > > > > were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying indexes > > to > > > > > existing tables in order to support per-provider(?) > > discriminators. > > > > > IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise > > > > environments, > > > > > and many of those environments had no desire to move to the > > > > > per-provider approach that was/is important to service > providers. > > > > > > > > > > Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid > > option > > > > > addressed this difference in perspective. > > > > > > > > > > I suppose one could draw a parallel with the RADIUS/Diameter > > split > > > > and > > > > > co-existence for different environments. > > > > > > > > > > dbh > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM > > > > > > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard > > > > > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue > of > > > > > > a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather > > > > > > new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when > > > > > > work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who > > > > > > wrote RFC 4663. > > > > > > > > > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for > these > > > > > > RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for which > > the > > > > > > procedure is described by an IESG statement - > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as- > > > > historic.html) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib- > > bounces@ietf.org] > > > On > > > > > > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > > > > > > To: C. M. Heard > > > > > > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. > > Since > > > it > > > > > > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in > RFC > > > > 2108, > > > > > > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC > 4878, > > > and > > > > RFC > > > > > > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for the > > meta- > > > > data > > > > > > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE > > Std > > > > > > > > 802.3.1? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. > > Dan, > > > > do you > > > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that obsoletes > > the > > > > listed > > > > > > > RFCs with a > > > > > > > pointer to the IEEE document. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > > > > >> FYI. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Dan > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > > > > > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > > > > > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval > > > Notification > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules > Task > > > > Force, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for > > Management > > > > > > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been > > > approved > > > > as an > > > > > > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to all > > of > > > > you for > > > > > > > your work on this project. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda for > > the > > > > June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon in > > > > conjunction > > > > > > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, NV, > > to > > > > plan > > > > > > > our work for the revision project. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Howard Frazier > > > > > > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > > > > > > >> To: Howard Frazier > > > > > > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Hi Howard, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval > > > notification. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Congratulations!! > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > > > >> David > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________ > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org > > [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > > > > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > > > > > > >> To: Law, David > > > > > > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > > > > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > > > > > > thompson@ieee.org > > > > > > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 17 May 2011 > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> David Law > > > > > > > >> HP Ltd. > > > > > > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > > > > > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > > > > > > > >> Scotland > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > > > > > > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > > > > > > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards > > Publishing > > > > > > > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management > > > > Information > > > > > > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > > > > > > >> Dear David, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved as > a > > > new > > > > > > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A > > copy > > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications > > > > Department. > > > > > > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years of > > > > approval by > > > > > > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > > > > > > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will > > be > > > > > > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board > for > > > > > > > administrative withdrawal. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have the > > right > > > > to > > > > > > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for > > information > > > on > > > > this > > > > > > > process: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to > > > > > > speaking with > > > > > > > your editor. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Sincerely, > > > > > > > >> ************************************************ > > > > > > > >> Karen M. Evangelista > > > > > > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > > > > > > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > > > > > > > >> 445 Hoes Lane > > > > > > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > > > > > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > > > > > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > > > > > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > > > > > > >> ************************************************* > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > > > > > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Hubmib mailing list > > > > > > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Jul 19 20:16:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA2721F8544 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:16:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h5BedJPGr8fY for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A130E21F8540 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:16:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AugAAJlHJk7GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABNBpgXj0p3iHypIgKbbIM9giFfBJgTgwuILw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,232,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="257517238" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 23:16:19 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 23:14:19 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:16:15 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification Thread-Index: AcxGix1VDEfnmC0PRqyuKAFqQK0AQgAAB1DQ References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "C. M. Heard" Cc: Hubmib , David Harrington , "Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen" Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:16:23 -0000 Hi Mike,=20 Adequate notice seems fine to me. Enjoy your time away from e-mail.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:14 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > ApprovalNotification >=20 > Dan, >=20 > Sorry, my bad -- I did not mean to suggest anything heavyweight, > certainly not publishing an RFC, just giving adequte notice to > interested parties of the intended action. Something less official > than a last call put to the relevant lists would be quite > sufficient. >=20 > Thanks and regards, >=20 > Mike >=20 > P.S. I'll be out of e-mail contact for approximately the next 10 > days; I'll try to be prompt about attending to anything in the queue > when I return. >=20 > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > Hmmmm ... 'a widely announced IETF last call' implies writing an I-D, > > and probably making it an RFC. What would be last-calling? Do you > think > > that we need an official last-call? I thought that for modifying the > > meta-data information for the RFCs an IESG decision would be enough. > > Wound a less official question asked on the lists beyond be > sufficient? > > Frankly, if we go all the way and we write an I-D and make it an RFC > (we > > also need a volunteer for this) I would rather go all the way and > make > > the RFCs Historic. > > > > I spoke with Howard Frazier (who is chairing the IEEE 802.3.1 effort) > > today. As expected he agrees with the proposal. The second phase of > the > > MIB revision in IEEE 802.3 is already chartered and with the > exception > > of the repeater and copper EFM MIB modules all the other MIB modules > > will go through changes. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:09 AM > > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > Waiting until after the IETF meeting to run the proposal past the > > > IESG sounds quite reasonable. > > > > > > If the IESG is open to the proposal, it seems to me that a > > > widely-announced IETF last-call should suffice. My suggestion > would > > > be to cc: the last call announcement to the hubmib, ietfmibs, > > > ops-area, and (possibly) opsawg lists (besides of course > > > ietf-announce, where all such things appear). > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > I think that everybody who expressed opinions in this thread > agreed > > > with > > > > your suggestion to mark the said RFCs as Obsoleted by IEEE > 802.3.1 > > > ... > > > > We also seem to agree that if possible we would do it by an IESG > > > > decision, avoiding the extra cost of writing an RFC. I am not > sure > > > yet > > > > that the IESG will accept this proposal, and I hesitate to run it > in > > > the > > > > busy week before the IETF meeting. > > > > > > > > Question - do we need to run this beyond the hubmib list? A > > one-slide > > > > presentation in the OPSAREA meeting for example? > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:37 PM > > > > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > > > > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > > > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > > > David Harrington and Glenn Parsons both provide good reasons > why > > > the > > > > > status of the IETF Bridge MIB modules should remain unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > My question, however, concerned the Ethernet-related MIB > modules > > in > > > > > RFCs 2108, 3621, 3635, 3637, 4836, 4837, 4878, and 5066. The > > > > > situation for those is different. New versions (rooted under > > > > > different OIDs) have been published in IEEE Std 802.3.1, and > the > > > > > overview section of that document says that it "supersedes and > > > makes > > > > > obsolete" those RFCs. > > > > > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, David Harrington wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the > > > IETF > > > > > > Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be > obsolete > > > or > > > > > > historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue > to > > be > > > > > > valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF > standards. > > > > > > > > > > > > IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in > ways > > > that > > > > > > were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying > indexes > > > to > > > > > > existing tables in order to support per-provider(?) > > > discriminators. > > > > > > IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise > > > > > environments, > > > > > > and many of those environments had no desire to move to the > > > > > > per-provider approach that was/is important to service > > providers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid > > > option > > > > > > addressed this difference in perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose one could draw a parallel with the RADIUS/Diameter > > > split > > > > > and > > > > > > co-existence for different environments. > > > > > > > > > > > > dbh > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM > > > > > > > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard > > > > > > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the > issue > > of > > > > > > > a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be > rather > > > > > > > new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, > when > > > > > > > work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH > who > > > > > > > wrote RFC 4663. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for > > these > > > > > > > RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for > which > > > the > > > > > > > procedure is described by an IESG statement - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as- > > > > > historic.html) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hubmib- > > > bounces@ietf.org] > > > > On > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > > > > > > > To: C. M. Heard > > > > > > > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. > > > Since > > > > it > > > > > > > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined in > > RFC > > > > > 2108, > > > > > > > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC > > 4878, > > > > and > > > > > RFC > > > > > > > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for > the > > > meta- > > > > > data > > > > > > > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by > IEEE > > > Std > > > > > > > > > 802.3.1? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies this. > > > Dan, > > > > > do you > > > > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that > obsoletes > > > the > > > > > listed > > > > > > > > RFCs with a > > > > > > > > pointer to the IEEE document. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > > > > > >> FYI. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Dan > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > > > > > > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > > > > > > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval > > > > Notification > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules > > Task > > > > > Force, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for > > > Management > > > > > > > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has been > > > > approved > > > > > as an > > > > > > > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to > all > > > of > > > > > you for > > > > > > > > your work on this project. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the agenda > for > > > the > > > > > June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon > in > > > > > conjunction > > > > > > > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline Village, > NV, > > > to > > > > > plan > > > > > > > > our work for the revision project. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Howard Frazier > > > > > > > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > > > > > > > >> To: Howard Frazier > > > > > > > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Howard, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval > > > > notification. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Congratulations!! > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > > > > >> David > > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________ > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org > > > [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > > > > > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > > > > > > > >> To: Law, David > > > > > > > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > > > > > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > > > > > > > thompson@ieee.org > > > > > > > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 17 May 2011 > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> David Law > > > > > > > > >> HP Ltd. > > > > > > > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > > > > > > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > > > > > > > > >> Scotland > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > > > > > > > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > > > > > > > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards > > > Publishing > > > > > > > > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management > > > > > Information > > > > > > > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > > > > > > > >> Dear David, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was approved > as > > a > > > > new > > > > > > > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. A > > > copy > > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > > document will be forwarded to the Standards Publications > > > > > Department. > > > > > > > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact > you. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five years > of > > > > > approval by > > > > > > > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not > revised, > > > > > > > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor > will > > > be > > > > > > > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board > > for > > > > > > > > administrative withdrawal. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have > the > > > right > > > > > to > > > > > > > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for > > > information > > > > on > > > > > this > > > > > > > > process: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to > > > > > > > speaking with > > > > > > > > your editor. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Sincerely, > > > > > > > > >> ************************************************ > > > > > > > > >> Karen M. Evangelista > > > > > > > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > > > > > > > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > > > > > > > > >> 445 Hoes Lane > > > > > > > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > > > > > > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > > > > > > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > > > > > > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > > > > > > > >> ************************************************* > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > > > > > > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Hubmib mailing list > > > > > > > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ietfdbh@comcast.net Tue Jul 19 15:10:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hubmib@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8DD21F87C5 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:10:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rRoisjInYI2L for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8006D21F877F for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.28]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 9y6l1h0060cZkys5Ay9SLu; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:09:26 +0000 Received: from davidPC ([67.189.235.106]) by omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 9y941h00K2JQnJT3Wy955C; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:09:06 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: "'C. M. Heard'" , "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" References: <4E2344DD.1040804@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:08:53 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcxGU6a0iWwSV3gqR861MY/buDrajAABVsoQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.17609 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:36:58 -0700 Cc: 'Hubmib' , "'Bert \(IETF\) Wijnen'" Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 ApprovalNotification X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:10:13 -0000 Hi, My question is: Is there a separate community (e.g., enterprise vs service providers) for whom the IETF MIB modules make sense, and for whom updating to the IEEE MIB modules is not warranted? If so, you might want to keep the IETF standard separate from the IEEE standard (but not progress the IETF standard). dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:37 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; David Harrington; Hubmib > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > ApprovalNotification > > Greetings, > > David Harrington and Glenn Parsons both provide good reasons why the > status of the IETF Bridge MIB modules should remain unchanged. > > My question, however, concerned the Ethernet-related MIB modules in > RFCs 2108, 3621, 3635, 3637, 4836, 4837, 4878, and 5066. The > situation for those is different. New versions (rooted under > different OIDs) have been published in IEEE Std 802.3.1, and the > overview section of that document says that it "supersedes and makes > obsolete" those RFCs. > > Mike Heard > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, David Harrington wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As I recall, when we did the transfer, it was agreed that the IETF > > Bridge MIBs would continue to be standards (i.e. not be obsolete or > > historic), and the defined compliance levels would continue to be > > valid for those who wished to comply only to the IETF standards. > > > > IEEE had an interest in extending the IETF MIB modules in ways that > > were not backwards compatible, such as totally modifying indexes to > > existing tables in order to support per-provider(?) discriminators. > > IETF Bridge MIBs have been widlet deployed in enterprise > environments, > > and many of those environments had no desire to move to the > > per-provider approach that was/is important to service providers. > > > > Allowing the continuation of the IETF compliance as a valid option > > addressed this difference in perspective. > > > > I suppose one could draw a parallel with the > RADIUS/Diameter split and > > co-existence for different environments. > > > > dbh > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:35 PM > > > To: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; C. M. Heard > > > Cc: Hubmib; David B Harrington > > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am not sure, I need to consult with the IESG, as the issue of > > > a non-IETF document obsoleting an IETF document may be rather > > > new. I see that we did not make such a note on RFC 4188, when > > > work was transferred to the IEEE 802.1WG. I am copying DBH who > > > wrote RFC 4663. > > > > > > To be clear - we are talking only about the meta-data for these > > > RFCs, not about changing their status to Historic (for which the > > > procedure is described by an IESG statement - > > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html) > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:hubmib-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Bert (IETF) Wijnen > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:24 PM > > > > To: C. M. Heard > > > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hubmib > > > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] FW: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 > > > > ApprovalNotification > > > > > > > > On 7/16/11 5:24 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > > This new IEEE standard was published on July 1, 2011. > Since it > > > > > includes updated versions of the MIB modules defined > in RFC 2108, > > > > > RFC 3621, RFC 3635, RFC 3637, RFC 4836, RFC 4837, RFC > 4878, and RFC > > > > > 5066, a question arises: would it be appropriate for > the meta-data > > > > > for these RFCs to indicate that they are obsoleted by IEEE Std > > > > > 802.3.1? > > > > > > > > Not sure if the RFC-editor can do or normally doies > this. Dan, do you > > > > know. > > > > > > > > If not, I guess we could write 1-2 page RFC that > obsoletes the listed > > > > RFCs with a > > > > pointer to the IEEE document. > > > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > Mike Heard > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 22 May 2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > >> FYI. > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards, > > > > >> > > > > >> Dan > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM] > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:06 AM > > > > >> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > > > >> Subject: [802.3.1_MIBS] FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval > Notification > > > > >> > > > > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB > modules Task Force, > > > > >> > > > > >> The initial version of P802.3.1/D3.1 Standard for Management > > > > Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet has > been approved as an > > > > IEEE standard. See below. Congratulations and thanks to > all of you for > > > > your work on this project. > > > > >> > > > > >> A PAR for a revision of the standard is on the > agenda for the June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting. > > > > >> > > > > >> We will hold a short meeting next Thursday afternoon > in conjunction > > > > with the IEEE 802.3 interim meetings in Incline > Village, NV, to plan > > > > our work for the revision project. > > > > >> > > > > >> Howard Frazier > > > > >> Chair, IEEE 802.3.1 Ethernet MIB modules Task Force > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@hp.com] > > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:05 PM > > > > >> To: Howard Frazier > > > > >> Subject: FW: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi Howard, > > > > >> > > > > >> On checking I found that I did have the approval > notification. > > > > >> > > > > >> Congratulations!! > > > > >> > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > >> David > > > > >> _______________________________________ > > > > >> > > > > >> From: k.evangelista@ieee.org [mailto:k.evangelista@ieee.org] > > > > >> Sent: 17 May 2011 14:28 > > > > >> To: Law, David > > > > >> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org; K.Bennett@ieee.org; > k.breitfelder@ieee.org; > > > > thompson@ieee.org > > > > >> Subject: 802.3.1-2011 Approval Notification > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> 17 May 2011 > > > > >> > > > > >> David Law > > > > >> HP Ltd. > > > > >> 20 Clayknowes Ave > > > > >> Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 6UR > > > > >> Scotland > > > > >> > > > > >> cc: Paul Nikolich, Sponsor Chair > > > > >> Kathryn Bennett, Program Manager > > > > >> Kim Breitfelder, Manager Standards Publishing > > > > >> Thomas Geoffrey, Negative Balloter > > > > >> > > > > >> RE: NEW P802.3.1/D3.1 (C/LM) Standard for Management > Information > > > > Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet > > > > >> Dear David, > > > > >> > > > > >> I am pleased to inform you that P802.3.1 was > approved as a new > > > > standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 16 May 2011. > A copy of the > > > > document will be forwarded to the Standards > Publications Department. > > > > The editor assigned to work on the project will contact you. > > > > >> > > > > >> All IEEE standards shall be updated within five > years of approval by > > > > the IEEE-SA Standards Board. If the standard is not revised, > > > > reaffirmed, or withdrawn within five years, the Sponsor will be > > > > notified that it will be submitted to the Standards Board for > > > > administrative withdrawal. > > > > >> > > > > >> It should be noted that any negative balloters have > the right to > > > > appeal. Please consult the following web pages for > information on this > > > > process: > > > > >> > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/ > > > > >> > > > > >> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/ > > > > >> > > > > >> Please contact me if you have any questions prior to > > > speaking with > > > > your editor. > > > > >> > > > > >> Sincerely, > > > > >> ************************************************ > > > > >> Karen M. Evangelista > > > > >> IEEE - SA Governance, Administrator > > > > >> IEEE Standards Activities Department > > > > >> 445 Hoes Lane > > > > >> Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA > > > > >> TEL: +1 732 562 3854 > > > > >> FAX: +1 732 796 6966 > > > > >> k.evangelista@ieee.org > > > > >> ************************************************* > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> Hubmib mailing list > > > > >> Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Hubmib mailing list > > > > Hubmib@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib > > > > > >