Subject: RE: WG Last Call

From: "Kubinec, Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 18:37:43 -0600

Hi All,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Flick [mailto:[email-masked]]

[snip]

> 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).

And I believe that if "a" were off the table, I'd choose "c" over
"b"...Steve, Andrew, anyone?

Lynn

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:57:32 +0200

Let me try to justify my conversion to c. (aka deprecating the 'chipset
thing'). 

I think we are continuing to push for a method of identification that is not
used in real life. Its theoretical advantage would find its usability in
times of transition, when Ethernet technology upgrades. These upgrades
usually imply introduction of pre-standard silicon. Even when the standard
becomes available, it's the protocol operability and interoperability
details that are under focus, and not the MIB interface. Logic and network
analyzers are the engineers tools at that stage. When the products reach the
stage when the standard MIB implementation is seriously dealt with, most of
the interoperability problems are behind.

That's why I think that the profit we get from this variable is not worth
the effort. That's why I think we did not get more than a handful of
positive answers when we asked 'Is it worth continuing to maintain this
list?' (all 'yes's coming from engineers working for chip or devices
vendors!).

The way I see c. implemented is deprecating dot3StatsEtherChipSet and
issuing "Ethernet Interface Chipset Registrations" as an informational
document that tells the whole story and includes one last and final list of
chipsets.

Now, I expect a chorus of protests, in case I am wrong.

Best Regards,

Dan Romascanu,
Systems Architecture Group Manager,
Lucent Technologies,
LAN Systems Group - Israel,
Data Networking Systems,
Voice: 972-3-645-8414

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	John Flick [SMTP:[email-masked]]
	Sent:	? ????? 09 1999 4:50
	To:	Dan Romascanu
	Cc:	[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'
	Subject:	RE: WG Last Call

	Dan Romascanu writes:
	 > The Last Call period is over. No comments were received. Is
everybody happy
	 > 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:       2 (Lynn K., Steve M.)

	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

---

From: Andrew Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:03:08 -0800

Given a choice of (a) or (c), I vote for (c). 
But if (b) were still on the table, I would promise to implement it :-)

Andrew

> From: Kubinec, Lynn [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 1999 4:38 PM
> To: [email-masked]