Subject: IEEE802 and RE: Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB WG Status

From: Andrew Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 11:33:55 -0700

Dan,

AFAIK, the only stuff pending from IEEE 802.3 is the 802.3ad trunking MIB
and 802.3ab 1000base-T:

802.3ad are writing their own SMIv2 MIB - I assume they don't need any help
from IETF other than to have the complete MIB published as a standards'
track RFC (needs endorsement of the hubmib WG I guess) and, possibly, an
assigment point somewhere under "mib-2" or "dot3" - David can comment better
than I can on that.

I don't know enough about 802.3ab to know whether there are any new
manageable objects required - perhaps Colin can help on that one.

There might also be some fallout from 802.3ac (VLAN format) but I think that
is limited to RMON/SMON things (did we already sort this one out?).

There are also several new 802.1 work items at various stages of the process
but I think those are probably best dealt with in the bridge WG.

Andrew
 
****************************************************************
Andrew Smith                              tel: +1 (408) 579-2821
Extreme Networks                          fax: +1 (408) 579-3000
3585 Monroe St.                   http://www.extremenetworks.com
Santa Clara CA 95051-1450        em:  [email-masked]
****************************************************************

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 02, 1999 11:42 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB WG Status
> 
> 
> It might be a good time to think about the WG status and 
> future work items. 
> 
> The set of three Internet-Drafts was forwarded to the Area 
> Director and we
> are entering the review cycle. Without being wildly 
> optimistic, I must note
> that things move faster since Bert is behind the wheel.
> 
> I would propose that we post to the list the possible items 
> for future work
> to be added to the Ethernet Interfaces, MAUs or Repeater MIBs 
> (or new MIBs,
> if they come close to what this WG usualy does).
> 
> According to the number of items and the level of 
> paritcipation, we will
> decide whether we want to meet at the next IETF on July, in 
> Oslo, Norway.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Dan
>  
>

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 15:00:23 +0200

[Dan]  Hi Andy,
	 
> assigment point somewhere under "mib-2" or "dot3" - David can comment
	[Dan] I think that the decision taken by 802.3ad to write a SMIv2
MIB is a wise one. Also, the way the MIB proposal is written comes close to
the IETF requirements, format and content-wise. (The MIB needs more work and
better description clauses and definitions, but it's work in progress).

	If the intention is to issue a document that evoluates into an IETF
standards track RFC, this is probably a little bit more complicated than
just receiving an assignement point. As I understand, such an endeavour
needs to  comply with the IETF process, which starts by finding a place in a
WG or creating a new dedicated WG in one of the IETF areas. Our WG is here
to facilitate this process, and we can start as soon as the 802.3ad standard
is approved, or comes closer to approval. However, including an item in an
IETF WG Charter is subject to the IETF Area Directors recomendations and
IESG approval. Also, the IETF WG must have the right to make changes in the
form and content of the working items, and the document(s) would go through
the IETF open discussions and consensus, and later review and approval
process.

	Another option would be for the authors of the MIB to publish it as
an Informational RFC. There are still some format changes to be brought, but
the discussions and approvals phases are spared. The minus is that the
resulted document is just Informational, with no 'IETF standard' label.

	The 802.3ad group needs to decide what path they chose, and whether
they intent to make out of this MIB an IETF standard. As at this stage some
of the technical stuff (e.g. the objects related to LACP) is open, it looks
like the WG does not need to take any immediate actions on this respect.

	Regards,

	Dan