Subject: IPS-ALL: FC Mgmt MIB WG Last Call

From: "Elizabeth G. Rodriguez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 02:01:03 -0600

All,

We would like to announce IPS Working Group Last call for the Fibre
Channel Management MIB.

Details:

Document: Fibre Channel Management MIB

URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ips-fcmgmt-mib-02.txt

Last call period: 2 Weeks

Submit comments no later than: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 5pm EST

Editor:  Keith McCloghrie ([email-masked])

Please submit editorial comments directly to Keith, with copy to David
Black ( <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]), and Elizabeth
Rodriguez( <mailto:[email-masked]>
[email-masked])

Submit technical comments to the IPS mailing list (
<mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked])

Editorial comments may be resolved directly by the editor of the
document, but any technical issues must be discussed on the IPS
reflector.

Thanks

Elizabeth Rodriguez & David Black

IPS co-chairs

---

From: Duane Baldwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:20:48 -0500

Keith,

I agree you should not have to do all the work.  I am tentatively willing
to help push this forward, but first would like input from these two
reflectors indicating group interest in providing a complete migration path
to this new MIB.

Thanks,  Duane Baldwin

--

                      Keith McCloghrie                                                                                 
                      <[email-masked]>          To:       Duane Baldwin/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS                             
                                               cc:       [email-masked] (Keith McCloghrie), Elizabeth.G.                
                      07/26/02 09:50 AM         [email-masked] (Elizabeth G. Rodriguez), [email-masked],       
                                                [email-masked], [email-masked]                              
                                               Subject:  Re: IPS-ALL: FC Mgmt MIB WG Last Call                         

Duane,

> OK, I understand that this MIB is a replacement for both draft-ietf-ipfc-
> fcmgmt-int-mib-07.txt and RFC 2837, and it appears to be an excellent
> effort  relative to these objectives and in fixing the many problems in
the
> original MIBs.  But I also assume one of the priorities of this WG is to
> identify the migration path for users of the new MIB, which is why I
raised
> the issue.  (I also raised the same issue back in April of this year.)
>
> The ability to discover a management URL is important and is widely used
> today.  Can you help in bringing this requirement to the Entity MIB WG?
Or

As I indicated in my previous message, I already did what you're asking
for; I took the requirement for each of the removed objects to the
Entity MIB WG.  Some of them have since been adopted there.  For the
others, perhaps I didn't explain the requirement for them as well as
you could.  Nevertheless, I believe it will take a sustained effort to
get them not only adopted but progressed to standardization.  I'm sorry
but I don't have the time or motivation for such a sustained effort.
In contrast, you seem to be motivated; so, the question is: do you have
the time ??

Keith.

> maybe as you mention, a management MIB is a better approach - but is
there
> such an effort underway?  The concept of a management URL object could
> definitely be improved on relative to "connUnitUrl", such as allowing
> multiple URL entries.
>
> Duane Baldwin
>