From dromasca@avaya.com Wed Aug 17 08:36:08 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 786A921F8B9A; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:36:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.419 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EeznsMvwhYeG; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:36:07 -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 3B01D21F8B92; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:36:07 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjoBALXeS06HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABCmRODa4tsd4FAAQEBAQECEh4KPwwEAgEIDQQEAQELBgwLAQYBICUJCAEBBBMIGodSmSACnDyFaV8EmD2ETIcB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,240,1312171200"; d="scan'208";a="262736143" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2011 11:36:57 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2011 11:28:40 -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: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:36:54 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Questions on IEEE published mib modules vs IETF Thread-Index: AcxboAJeFi6hDNAZQ/KJ8ABDeQ7XBQBUEZhg References: From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Michael MacFaden" Cc: "MIB Doctors \(E-mail\)" , Hubmib Subject: Re: [Hubmib] Questions on IEEE published mib modules vs IETF 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, 17 Aug 2011 15:36:08 -0000 Hi Mike,=20 I am copying hubmib as the last question refers to Ethernet MIB documents.=20 There is no equivalent of the IETF maturity levels in the IEEE. There is just one level of standards, and there is a re-affirmation process that needs to happen every five years, unless the standard was updated sooner.=20 I do not know about the LAG MIB. I think - but I am not sure - that it is being updated. Best place to ask is the IEEE 802.3 folks - Howard Frazier(hfrazier@broadcom.com) is a good person to start from. Howard chairs the IEEE 802.3.1 project which is taking over the Ethernet MIB work in the IEEE=20 The MIB modules defined in RFC 3635 and RFC 4836 (and a few more) are in the scope of IEEE 802.3.1 which was approved as an IEEE standard a few months ago. We entertained a discussion at and around the Quebec meeting and decided to mark the RFCs as obsolete by the IEEE standards and point to these, but not transit them to Historic (not yet in any case). Bert will write when he gets some time a short Informational RFC to document this transition.=20 I hope this helps.=20 Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: macfaden@gmail.com [mailto:macfaden@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Michael MacFaden > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:07 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: MIB Doctors (E-mail) > Subject: Questions on IEEE published mib modules vs IETF >=20 > Hi Dan, >=20 > Can you or someone on this list explain what's the equivalent of the > IETF maturity level for > IEEE mib modules? Specifically those found here: > http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/MIBs >=20 > For example am looking at IEEE8023-LAG-MIB which doesn't match the one > in this > spec so am curious when it would be updated. The changes appear to be > fixed REFERENCES only. > http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1AX-2008.pdf >=20 > Lastly, are these IETF mib modules going to deprecated/moved to IEEE? > EtherLike-MIB/3635 and MAU-MIB/4836. >=20 > Thanks > Mike MacFaden From macfaden@gmail.com Wed Aug 17 10:15:21 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 E847A21F8BCB; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:15:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wp1ekCAXvWR4; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B99221F8BC4; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:15:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so823453wwf.13 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:16:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1DG5POvxlB7CVAOKDB6Jmj8nbRBYW/claZu19agalIo=; b=ZVoCz/89nWE6wpzfFruN2onHd8N7OP6/AA4B/melMaTKhBVBNC7cuHz/U5vpXDJfjS AlUH26EqG5bR+mE9diHowoS+hvrTUYMQE++ik/OcfzwjISk+X2nWU0TmKOl8el1Gmrzy ickLZq6sNrS8zKujccrGNwSnR8ZlxqmKMKv5Q= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.172.69 with SMTP id s47mr4219170wel.95.1313601365038; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: macfaden@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.169.82 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:16:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:16:04 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eYQ_9Cyb3jWnMnXIhfHY1AFfD3M Message-ID: From: Michael MacFaden To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:49:52 -0700 Cc: "MIB Doctors \(E-mail\)" , hubmib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Hubmib] [MIB-DOCTORS] Questions on IEEE published mib modules vs IETF 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, 17 Aug 2011 17:15:22 -0000 On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > There is no equivalent of the IETF maturity levels in the IEEE. There is > just one level of standards, and there is a re-affirmation process that > needs to happen every five years, unless the standard was updated > sooner. Ok, that's good to know. Unfortunately there is no README.txt file at this URL http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/MIBs to describe when files are posted here at what part of the standards process this is/such as being up for reaffirmation. Am going to the pdf's just to make sure. > The MIB modules defined in RFC 3635 and RFC 4836 (and a few more) are in > the scope of IEEE 802.3.1 which was approved as an IEEE standard a few > months ago. We entertained a discussion at and around the Quebec meeting > and decided to mark the RFCs as obsolete by the IEEE standards and point > to these, but not transit them to Historic (not yet in any case). Bert > will write when he gets some time a short Informational RFC to document > this transition. Makes sense to me, have already started using IEEE8021-BRIDGE-MIB, IEEE8021-Q-BRIDGE, and others in products so would prefer new to use correct IEEE versions when they become available. Thanks again, Mike MacFaden