Subject: RE: WG Last Call

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:33:36 +0200

The Last Call period is over. No comments were received. Is everybody happy
with the two drafts, or it's just the holidays effect?

Dan

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Dan Romascanu [SMTP:[email-masked]]
	Sent:	? ????? 15 1998 11:45
	To:	[email-masked]'
	Cc:	[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
	Subject:	WG Last Call

	This is a WG Last Call for the two Internet-Drafts currently under
work in
	the Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB WG:

	 *	Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium
Attachment
	Units (MAUs) using SMIv2 - draft-ietf-hubmib-mau-mib-v2-01.txt
	 *	Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like
Interface Types
	- draft-ietf-hubmib-etherif-mib-v2-01.txt

	Please provide your feedbacks until Jan. 5, 1999. 

	We are aware that in the Ethernet MIB document there is need to do
more
	edits on the Chipset Registration issue, but I encourage everybody
to cover
	the whole extend of the Internet-Drafts, as after this spin we would
like to
	forward the documents to the Area Directors.

	Best Regards,

	Dan Romascanu,
	Systems Architecture Group Manager,
	Lucent ISRAEL,
	Voice: 972-3-645-8414

---

From: John Flick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 18:50:09 -0800 (PST)

> with the two drafts, or it's just the holidays effect?

As editor, I believe the only change needed to the MAU MIB is to
update Dan's company affiliation and e-mail address in the Author's
Addresses and MODULE-IDENTITY. (Dan: is the rest of your contact info
still valid?)  This document has been stable for a while.

The Ethernet-Like MIB is a different story.  In addition to the above
change, I feel we really cannot go forward with the text in section 3.4 
as it stands.  We NEED a consensus on the chipset thing, and it needs
to be documented.  As editor, I still am not seeing consensus.  Here
are the options I listed in my e-mail just before last call:

      a. IANA-maintained assignments under dot3 tree
      b. vendor assignment under enterprise tree
      c. deprecate the object

By my tally, the following are the opinions expressed so far:

      a:       2 (Lynn K., Steve M.)
      b:       2 (John F., Andrew S.)
      c:       1 (Dan R., though I seem to rememeber Jeff J. also
                  expressed this view in past e-mail)
      abstain: ~110

I don't know how to read a consensus out of that.

My strawman b proposal raised 2 objections (which, given the level of
participation, can be seen as overwhelming rejection).  If we consider
choice b to be off the table, I would much prefer c over a (I just
don't think it is worth the trouble of IANA administration).

Also, once this choice is made, I will still need to crank out one
more informational document containing the current list of
registrations, and either a statement that they are historic (for
choice c), or information on how to register new chipsets (for choice a).

All three documents should probably go to the IESG as a set.

John