[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-00.txt
Hi,
This is the current plan for transitioning the responsibility for work
on subsequent bridge-related MIB modules from the Bridge WG to the
IEEE 802.1 WG.
Please review this document.
I think one place that might be tightened up is the question of
whether the 802.1 WG will need to modify the existing IETF MIBs. We
have some discussion about it is being easier for them to add a couple
columns to an existing row by chaging our MIB, but it seems to me that
AUGMENTS or reuse of indeices would accomplish this without requiring
any change to the existing MIB modules. The only thing I think we
might need to change would be to obsolete existing objects, and that
doesn't happen very often.
Any MIB Doctor may be requested (pleaded with) to volunteer to review
an 802.1 WG MIB module, although Dan and I have been at the forefront
of this. Please ask any questions you have about the difference in
procedures.
Thanks,
David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net
Bridge WG D. Harrington, Ed.
Internet-Draft Effective Software Consulting
Expires: April 9, 2006 October 6, 2005
Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge WG to IEEE 802.1 WG
draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document describes the plan to transition responsibility for
bridging-related MIB modules from the IETF Bridge WG to the IEEE
802.1 WG, which develops the bridging technology the MIB modules are
designed to manage.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. New IEEE MIB Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. New MIB PARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. IEEE MIB Modules in ASCII format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. OID Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Editing New IEEE MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Current Bridge WG Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Transferring Current Bridge WG Documents . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Updating IETF MIB modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. IANA OID Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Mailing List Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Comment Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Bridge WG Mailing List Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. MIB Doctor Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Review Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Review Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Review Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Communicating the Transition Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Intellectual Property Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
1. Introduction
This document describes the plan to transition responsibility for
bridging-related MIB modules from the IETF Bridge WG to the IEEE
802.1 WG, which develops the bridging technology the MIB modules are
designed to manage. The current Bridge WG documents are
o "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges" [RFC4188],
o "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes,
Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions" [I-D.ietf-bridge-
ext-v2],
o "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Rapid Spanning
Tree Protocol" [I-D.ietf-bridge-rstpmib], and
o Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges
[RFC1525]
This document is meant to establish some clear expectations between
IETF and IEEE about the transition of Bridge WG MIB modules to the
IEEE 802.1 WG, so that the plan can be reviewed by the IESG, IAB,
IETF, and IEEE. There might be some case-by-case situations that
arise, but this document describes the general strategy.
Some points requiring further WG research and discussion are
identified by [discuss] markers in the text. Points where further
editorial work is required are identified by [todo] markers in the
text.
1.1. Motivation
Having SNMP MIB modules to provide management functionality for its
technologies is important for the 802.1 community, so it needs to
charter this work as part of the Project Authorization Requests
(PARs) for each new project, to ensure that resources are being
mobilized for execution. This is also true with respect to MIB
support for already completed 802.1 projects - maintenance projects
need to include the development of SNMP MIB modules.
The IESG has mandated that IETF WGs that produce a protocol are also
required to develop the corresponding MIB module rather than leaving
that to "the SNMP experts" to do later. Part of the motivation was
obviously to make the protocols more manageable, but part of the
motivation was also balancing the workload better and getting the
content experts more involved in the management design. While the
IESG does not mandate that other standards development organizations
(SDOs) do so, if such work comes into the IETF, then we want the
other SDO to bring in subject matter expertise to work with us, or,
even better, to take the lead themselves.
The manpower problem is certainly an aspect that is relevant.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
Developing IEEE 802 MIB documents could be developed in the IETF, but
only if the subject matter experts come to IETF to actually
participate (lead) the work. The content experts need to be more
involved in the MIB module development, and resources need to be
dedicated to completing the work, whether editing is done in the IEEE
or the IETF. The IETF is OK with other organizations (like 802)
doing MIB documents themselves, and the IETF offers to help review
them from an SNMP/MIB/SMI perspective. This is true even after the
transition, since quality MIB modules are important to smooth
management of the Internet and the technologies it runs on.
1.2. History
2. New IEEE MIB Work
2.1. New MIB PARs
The IEEE-SA Standards Board New Standards Committee (NesCom) deals
with the Projects Approval Requests - see
http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/. PARs are roughly the
equivalent of an IETF Working Group Charter, and include information
concerning the scope, purpose, and justification for standardization
projects.
Following early discussions concerning the transfer of MIB work from
the IETF Bridge MIB WG to the IEEE 802.1 WG, the development of SMIv2
MIB modules associated with IEEE 802.1 projects has been included
within the scope of the work of new projects.
For example the PAR form of the IEEE 802.1ah - Provider Backbone
Bridges [PAR-IEEE802.1ah] includes in Section 13 - "Scope of Proposed
Project" an explicit reference to 'support management including
SNMP'.
Although it is not mandatory for the MIB development work to be
specified explicitly in a new PAR to have the work done - see work
done in IEEE 802.1AB [IEEE802.1AB]and IEEE 802.1AE [IEEE802.1AE]- it
is RECOMMENDED that IEEE 802.1 WG PARs include explicit wording in
the scope section wherever there is need for MIB development as part
of the standard.
The IEEE 802.1 Working Group is considering a new project for the
Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP). This work is based on
initial submissions, some of which were made in the IETF Bridge MIB
Working Group. The proposal for this PAR is documented at http://
www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2005/new-congdon-MSTP-MIB-0505
.pdf.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
Since the IETF Bridge MIB WG does not intend to develop MIB modules
in the future, it is recommended to direct submitters of new work in
the bridge management space to the IEEE 802.1 WG, and to not publish
their proposed MIB modules as Internet-Drafts.
2.2. IEEE MIB Modules in ASCII format
Having MIB modules be made freely and openly available in an ASCII
format will be a critical factor in having the SNMP community accept
the transfer of 802.1 MIB development from IETF Bridge WG to IEEE
802.1 WG. While 802.1 can certainly decide they're going to develop
MIB modules in the PDF format, which they use for their documents,
without publishing an ASCII version, most network management systems
can import a MIB module that is in ASCII format but not one in PDF
format. Not publishing an ASCII version of the MIB module would
negatively impact implementers and deployers of MIB modules.
The 802.1 WG has started making the MIB module portion of their
documents available as separate text files during project
development, and allowing IETF personnel to access these documents
for review purposes. For completed specifications, the ASCII version
of the MIB module is available on the 802.1 WG website
(http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/MIBS.html).
There may be some issues about what gets included in the freely
available specification. The ASN.1 MIB module alone will probably be
insufficient; some discussion of the structure of the MIB, the
anticipated use cases for MIB objects, the relationship to other MIB
modules, and security considerations will also need to be made
available to ensure appropriate implementation and deployment of the
MIB module within the Internet environment.
The 2001 version of the ASN.1 MIB module for 802.1X (the IEEE8021-
PAE-MIB) has been published in ASCII on
http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/MIBS.html, but should be updated with
enough surrounding documentation to be clear, and to address
deployment issues such as security considerations.
[discuss] Did the 802.1 WG submit a document for 802.3ad, or is this
a typo?
The 802.1 WG has, with some projects (e.g., 802.1X, 802.3ad)
submitted a MIB module document to be published as an informational
RFC. Since the IEEE is publishing a corresponding document as a
standard, and the RFC is only informational, it would probably be
better to point interested parties to the appropriate 802.1 WG public
website to prevent confusion over who is maintaining the document.
As we transition existing Bridge WG documents to the 802.1 WG, and
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
the 802.1 WG document obsoletes the last IETF version, the Bridge WG
or the 802.1 WG should create a corresponding RFC that simply points
to the openly available IEEE copy, so we don't have a problem with
synchronization between the copies being published.
[discuss] I haven't been able to locate the Informational RFC for
802.1X MIB.
2.3. OID Registration
As the 802.1 WG updates the 802.1 standards, new MIB modules will
need to be developed and registered, and they will be registered
under the 802.1 registration branch, as was done with the 802.1X MIB
module.
IEEE has an established set of arcs in 802 for registration of OIDs
and it makes sense for the IEEE to administer the registration of MIB
module assignments for MIB modules they maintain, rather than asking
IANA to provide such registrations. The administration of the 802
arc is documented in IEEE 802b.
2.4. Editing New IEEE MIB Modules
MIB module editors will need to be regular attendees and become
members over time, as is the norm for 802.1 membership. Showing up
at the meetings is the important factor because official IEEE work is
done in the meetings, rather than on mailing lists as in the IETF.
For exceptional conditions, the Chair has the power to bestow
membership ahead of the usual attendance requirement.
During the transition, to accommodate IETF candidates for editor,
work can take place over email and outside of the meetings initially
3. Current Bridge WG Documents
The Bridge WG documents have all been submitted for publication as
Proposed Standards, and have been approved by the IESG. The
documents should not change except editorially before being published
as RFCs. It should be fine for the 802.1 WG to work against those
documents while waiting for RFC publication, with the understanding
that there is always a small chance an appeal could be filed, or
other unusual events could cause the RFCs to not be published or to
change technically.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
3.1. Transferring Current Bridge WG Documents
[discuss] We need to work out just how the transition of
responsibility for existing MIB modules will happen. The IETF will
not want to give up all rights to the documents, and have the 802.1
WG simply republish the existing documents under the IEEE name.
The 802.1 WG will need to work through the management objects in the
existing documents to determine whether they are consistent with
their emerging specifications.
During the final work on these documents in the Bridge WG, there were
some issues that we decided not to solve and to allow it to be dealt
with as part of the future work in the 802.1 WG. It would be useful
to document these known issues so future generations of Bridge MIB
developers in the IEEE will not need to dig in the Bridge WG archives
to see what issues existed. [discuss] Maybe write a short Internet-
Draft that concludes where we got in the IETF, and what is left for
the IEEE
3.2. Updating IETF MIB modules
[todo - wordsmith] The 802.1 WG sometimes modifies the wording of
their standards under maintenance PARs. Modifying the definitions in
a published MIB module could prove illegal according to the SMI
rules. It may be best to expect that the BRIDGE-MIB and the
P-BRIDGE-MIB and Q-BRIDGE-MIB and RSTP-MIB will remain in the IETF,
and not be further modified by the IETF. The IEEE can write a
separate document that contains updates to their technologies, such
as 802.1Q, and include a separate MIB module that augments the IETF
documents. They will not be able to modify the semantics of existing
objects, per the SMI, so the IETF will not want to have the 802.1 WG
publish the existing IETF MIB modules in their documents and
inadvertently violate the rules of SMI, while following the rules of
IEEE standards updating.
[discuss] The 802.1 WG may need to deprecate and obsolete objects in
the IETF documents. How does this work without republishing the
document under an IEEE arc? Will the IETF publish an updated
document with the deprecated/obsolete objects?
3.3. Clarifications
As the 802.1 WG handles the MIB development, the IEEE-standard
"managed variables" and the associated IEEE MIB module objects will
probably correspond, as many existing BRIDGE-MIB objects already
correspond to 802.1 management variables, such as these from 802.1Q.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
Virtual Bridge MIB object IEEE 802.1Q-2003 Reference
dot1qBase
dot1qVlanVersionNumber 12.10.1.1 read bridge vlan config
dot1qMaxVlanId 12.10.1.1 read bridge vlan config
dot1qMaxSupportedVlans 12.10.1.1 read bridge vlan config
dot1qNumVlans
dot1qGvrpStatus 12.9.2.1/2 read/set garp
applicant controls
IEEE allows definitions to be clarified in a manner that can actually
change the semantics somewhat. SMI rules generally prevent changing
the semantics of defined MIB objects without obsoleting the current
object and replacing it with an object with a new descriptor and OID
registration. It is expected that, once both the MIB definition and
the "managed variable" descriptions are in the same document, this
problem will go away, as IEEE can update both at the same time in the
approved manner.
For an 802.1 standard that hasn't yet defined a MIB module to
supersede the IETF MIB module, the need to fix a description in the
MIB module in a manner that would not be SMI legal would precipitate
the need to also define an IEEE MIB module. [discuss] would this
replace the whole IETF MIB module, or just the necessary objects?
The current practice in the 7802.1 WG is to define the management
variable and then a mapping table to associated MIB module objects
(as shown above). The 802.1 WG could redefine the mapping to a new
MIB object if the 802.1 management variable semantics changed, thus
allowing the 802.1 WG to 'do it right' by SMI rules, obsoleting the
old MIB object and creating a new one.
Often the mapping of 802 variables to MIB objects isn't and doesn't
have to be a 1:1 mapping. In the future 802 variables may be
invented with Web-based services in mind, but today the primarily
focus is on SNMP usage, and incorporating MIB modules into the specs
themselves will likely further that focus. The level of redirection
that exists today between 802 variables and MIB objects might be
useful for the transition process when changing 802 management
variable semantics and obsoleting MIB objects. [discuss] As mentioned
above, this mapping would not show up in the ASN.1 MIB module; this
is in the surrounding text. Should 802 document the mapping info in
comments in the ASN.1 MIB module (beyond the REFERENCE clause)?
[discuss] Will the IETF "turn over" the Bridge MIB module
specifications to the 802.1 WG for maintenance, and thus Bridge MIB
modules would be subject to the 802.1 rules? Will the Bridge MIB
modules be "frozen in time", and updated only via the development of
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
independent MIB modules developed by the 802.1 WG? Or will IETF
maintain ownership of the Bridge MIB modules, and perform maintenance
on those modules as needed, if requested by the 802.1 WG? [PC] this
is really a general question of maintenance of MIB modules that
aren't currently under the 802 tree. I would hope we could do this
in the least intrusive way for the end-user, but if we have to move
the entire module under the 802 tree to get the necessary editing
control, then this is what we will have to do. What does the IETF
prefer?
3.4. IANA OID Registration
The IETF and IEEE 802.1 have separate registration branches in the
OID tree. The Bridge MIB modules are registered under the IETF
branch, and some assignments are maintained by IANA.
As 802.1 standards are modified, the changes may include needed
modifications to supplement the existing tables. In many cases, this
can be handled by developing an IEEE MIB module that augments the
existing tables, or reuses the indexing of the existing tables. The
new modules can be assigned under the IEEE arc.
When the changes only require the additional of one or two objects to
the existing MIB modules, it may be simpler for the 802.1 WG to
define additional managed objects within the IANA-controlled
registration tree. Such additions should probably require approval
by the Area Directors of Operations and Management after MIB Doctor
review. We should write a document similar to RFC3737 for an IANA
controlled and administered Bridge OID registry. [discuss] Is this
simpler than defining their own MIB modules using AUGMENTS? Using an
IEEE MIB certainly would seem simpler for additional scalars or
sparse columns to existing tables.
We need a balance between disruption to existing implementations and
efficiency in making changes. Keeping the existing trees in their
place minimizes disruption to existing implementations. There will
certainly be appropriate review by IETF, but I'm hoping the IEEE
doesn't have to get bogged down by process every time we need an OID
from IANA. [discuss] Is there going to need to be special casing by
IANA when we request such an OID? What is the process?
[discuss] If the 802.1 WG does their documents, and makes them
publicly available and if we can check the MIB before it gets
published, then maybe we can keep the OIDs as they currently are and
let IEEE do extensions. But it is clear that in the case that OID
branches get assigned by IANA, we (IETF) would want to have sign-off
authority.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
[discuss] Tony's expectation would be that in time the 802.1-related
MIB modules will all migrate to arcs under the 802 registration tree,
so he would expect them to be defined in a new related table under
the IEEE branch. What makes the most sense in terms of supporting
the MIB modules from the users point of view? Seems it would be the
least intrusive to keep the existing trees in place, and supplement
them with IEEE objects in IEEE arcs.
4. Mailing List Discussions
After the Bridge WG is done with its documents, the WG will close,
but the mailing list will remain open for possible BRIDGE-MIB related
discussions, such as responding to implementer questions.
One goal of the transition is to get the IEEE technology experts more
involved in the related MIB module development. IETF-comfortable
people may find the IEEE process uncomfortable, but they need to get
accustomed to the IEEE process. Therefore, the Bridge WG chairs will
discourage discussion of ongoing IEEE MIB module work on the Bridge
WG list and ask that the discussion be moved to the IEEE list, with a
notice comparable to:
Note that this work is out of scope for the Bridge WG mailing list.
The appropriate mailing list for IEEE 802.1 MIB module discussion
is STDS-802-1-L@listserv.ieee.org.
To subscribe to the STDS-802-1-L list, go to
http://www.ieee802.org/1/email-pages/
To see the general information about 802,1, including how they
work and how to participate, go to http://www.ieee802.org/1/
To see presentations on the technology, go to
http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2004
The MSTP-MIB proposals are being collected for 802.1 to prove
adequate interest and a good-enough-to-start-from-point to decide
whether the 802.1 WG should accept this as a WG effort. The
discussion of the MSTP-MIB will be held on the 802.1 list to allow
the 802.1 chair to keep it focused on the PAR and 5C justification
(Cf: charter discussion) rather than on detailed discussions of the
proposals. It is important to keep discussions "in scope", and
discussing the PAR and 5Cs justification is inappropriate for an IETF
list, and discussing the technology details for a project not in the
WG charter is usually inappropriate for an IETF list.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
4.1. Comment Formats
The IEEE has a special format for comments regarding documents to
ensure that all comments are reviewed and resolved during the
meetings. Informal discussions can be held on the 802.1 mailing
list, but once the 802.1 WG runs a ballot in 802.1, they would like
all comments to be submitted in 802.1 comment format.
4.2. Bridge WG Mailing List Announcements
If requested by the 802.1 WG chair or vice-chair, the Bridge WG
chairs will post an announcement that the 802.1 WG is planning to
start work on developing or updating bridge-related MIB modules and
is seeking volunteers.
The Bridge WG chairs watch the 802.1 list, and if something
significant to the Bridge WG comes up, such as the 802.1 chairs call
for review of three fairly-stable pre-PAR proposals, or a decision
needs to be made between three proposals after a PAR has been
approved, or an official Draft is completed and needs review, then
the Bridge WG chairs can post the document(s) on the Bridge WG
mailing list for extra review.
5. MIB Doctor Reviews
5.1. Introduction
The leaders of the Bridge WG, 802.1 WG, IETF O&M area, and IEEE 802
area have discussed having IETF MIB Doctors review 802 developed MIB
modules. This is a loose offering.
The expectation is that IETF will maintain a group of MIB Doctors who
can review 802 developed MIB modules, when a MIB Doctor is available
and willing to do such review. It is the choice of individual MIB
Doctors to provide technical advice and MIB Doctor reviews, and it is
the willingness of the 802.1 editors and the support of the 802.1
chairs that determine whether the advice is accepted or not. It is
not formalized as in the IETF.
In the IETF, the O&M Area Directors get "pushed" by other Area
Directors to have MIB module documents reviewed by MIB Doctors when
they start to come to WG Last Call, IETF Last Call, and certainly no
later than when they appear on the IESG agenda. This demand requires
prioritization of requests for MIB Doctor reviews by the Area
Directors and prioritization by MIB Doctors when deciding whether to
accept a request to review documents.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
When there are many IETF MIB documents in the queue and an IEEE MIB
module document comes along for review, it will be the choice of the
individual MIB Doctors whether to accept such a request, and how to
prioritize their work.
It will be helpful to MIB Doctors if the 802.1 chair requests a
review early in development, after a MIB module design has been
established but before an editor has done much detailing of the MIB
module, so a MIB Doctor can ensure that the table relationships and
indexing are reasonable. Then it will be helpful if the 802.1 chair
requests reviews only for important ballots, rather than for every
revision.
5.2. Review Guidelines
The IETF has developed a set of "Best Current Practice" MIB review
guidelines, so editors and other WG members can check the document
against the guidelines before requesting a MIB Doctor review. The
802.1 WG should utilize the MIB review guidelines before requesting a
MIB Doctor review.
The MIB review guidelines are also intended to help editors by
guiding MIB Doctors, so reviews by different MIB Doctors will remain
fairly consistent. Each MIB Doctor has their own "pet peeves", and
the guidelines can help an editor know whether a review point is
based on the consensus of the MIB Doctors, or a pet peeve.
Many SMI constraints and IETF editing constraints and best current
practices are discussed in the mib-review-guidelines. However, many
aspects of good MIB design (e.g. table fate-sharing, good index
choices, etc.) are more art than science, and are not discussed in
the guidelines. Those might be more useful to other SDOs (and IETF
editors) than guidelines relating to IETF boilerplate requirements.
The MIB Doctors have discussed starting a design guidelines document.
The MIB review guidelines were used when reviewing the 802.1AB
[IEEE802.1AB]and 802.1AE [IEEE802.1AE]documents. During those
reviews, there were some issues found with the review-guidelines that
we need to evaluate further.
In the IETF boilerplates, some of the terms have different meaning in
IETF and IEEE, and different editing style guidelines are being used
by the different bodies. It would be good to develop an 802 MIB
boilerplate that is consistent with the IETF boilerplate, in purpose
if not in terminology.
There are many IETF-specific aspects of the MIB review guidelines,
and the IEEE should probably formalize their own guidelines to
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
supplement the IETF guidelines. For example, an IETF standard MIB
module must use the approved boilerplates for MIB modules, IANA
considerations, IPR, and ID-nits that do not directly apply to IEEE
MIB module work. For the most part, the IETF guidelines have been
applied to IEEE MIB modules with minor adjustments, even though the
IEEE has its own rules of document formatting, IPR, and OID
assignments.
An IETF MIB document template that contains all the required
sections, following RFC Editor guidelines and the MIB review
guidelines, is under development to help editors get started
developing a MIB module document. The template will help MIB Doctors
check new MIB modules more efficiently by providing the most up-to-
date MIB module boilerplate, with sections in the preferred order,
suggestions for what to include in certain sections, and the
references required to support boilerplate text. It is recommended
that the IEEE 802.1 WG establish a comparable template, following the
IEEE editing guidelines and the MIB review guidelines where
appropriate.
Such an IEEE template could simply result in being the management
clause of an 802.1 document, to be filled in with technology-specific
information. In 802.1AB, the MIB clause was restructured to include
modified IETF boilerplates and security considerations. This might
be a good start on such an IEEE template. It would be helpful to MIB
Doctors and editors if the unmodified template was available in ASCII
format for comparison to a document in development, to verify that
the appropriate boilerplate text is being used.
When the 802.1 WG creates a PAR for 802.1 Bridge MIB maintenance, the
creation of such a template might be included in the PAR.
5.3. Review Format
The 802.1 WG uses a template for comments, in the following format,
so the onus to provide new text is on the reviewer, not the editor.
NAME:
COMMENT TYPE:
[E=Editorial, ER=Editorial Required]
[T=Technical, TR=Technical Required]
CLAUSE:
PAGE:
LINE:
COMMENT START:
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
MIB Doctor reviews in the IETF are typically done in simple text
email, and often contain a long list of review comments. MIB Doctor
reviews sometimes raise a general design issue rather than an issue
with specific text, and some MIB Doctor comments refer to "global"
problems, such as many objects that do not specify persistence
requirements.
For global problems, MIB Doctors are not required to provide the
replacement text for each of these instances when doing 802.1 MIB
module reviews. For example, if the naming of objects does not
follow recommended conventions throughout the document, the MIB
Doctor can point out the relevant clause in the MIB review guidelines
without suggesting each replacement object name. This is an
important concession to the MIB Doctors, to better suit the nature of
their reviews, even though this puts the onus on the editor to fix
the problem without explicit suggested changes.
During the transition, the chair and vice-chair of the 802.1 WG are
willing to accept simple emails, as long as they give enough
information to understand what the problem is and how to fix it. In
addition, since the MIB Modules are usually just one long clause in
802.1 documents, the comment format is fairly straight forward. Just
a problem description, a suggested resolution, and a page and line
number. It would be good if comments could be submitted with each
comment in the preferred format; this makes it easier on the editor
to understand what is requested, easier to log the comment, and
easier to review the comment in the meeting environment. Hopefully,
the majority of MIB comments can be handled outside of the official
balloting process.
5.4. Review Weight
In the IETF, MIB Doctor review happens as part of the process of
approving a standard. When a document is submitted to the IESG for
approval as a standard, the Area Director/IESG requests a MIB Doctor
review. Failure to pass the review can stop forward progress of a
document in the standardization process at the discretion of the Area
Director. MIB Doctors take their role seriously and perform detailed
reviews.
In the IEEE, the board that approves a standard is separate from the
802.1 WG, and the reviews MIB Doctors will do based on this
transition plan are done within the 802.1 WG . So a MIB Doctor
review in the 802.1 WG is akin to an IETF WG chair asking for a MIB
Doctor to sanity-check the work, rather than a formal "MIB Doctor
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
review".
Formally, comments from any origin carry the same weight in 802.1;
even voting status in the WG doesn't make your comments less weighty
than a non-voter. The 802.1 WG is not permitted to ignore any
comments, regardless of origin. Serious comments are always taken
seriously and never ignored.
The IEEE typically requires comments to be officially submitted in a
specific format, including proposed replacement text, which is then
reviewed at the meetings, and the decisions are documented in
disposition documents. These comments and dispositions are available
from the 802.1 private website. IETF personnel can be given the
password to the website by the 802.1 WG chair, so they can see
previous and current comments and dispositions.
We should not give the impression that the IEEE documents have
received the organized, coordinated, and formalized MIB Doctor review
as done in the IETF, if such review is done on an ad-hoc basis, and
not necessarily as part of the advancement process. We need to be
clear what is said, because the phrase "This document has passed MIB
Doctor review" has quite some weight in the IETF. We need to clarify
whether to describe the reviews done as having been done by an "IETF
MIB Doctor" or "IEEE 802 MIB Doctor", or a generic "MIB Doctor"
[discuss]
[discuss] Should MIB Doctor reviews be copied to the 802.1 chair?
Should MIB Doctor reviews be explicitly requested by the 802.1 chair
at certain key points in the process?
6. Communicating the Transition Plan
The transition plan was discussed in the Bridge WG at IETF61, and
included a presentation "Bridge MIB Transition to IEEE 802.ppt"
available in the proceedings.
The transition was discussed with the 802.1 WG at the San Antonio,
San Francisco, and Garden Grove meetings. Presentations are
available in http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2004/
new-bridge-mib-transition-1104.ppt, http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/
public/docs2005/liaison-ietf-congdon-0705.pdf, and http://
www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2005/
liaison-ietf-congdon-0905.pdf.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
7. Security Considerations
This document describes a plan to transition MIB module
responsibility from the IETF Bridge WG to the IEEE 802.1 WG. It does
not impact security.
8. Intellectual Property Considerations
There is a desire to ensure that the IETF has sufficient rights to do
derivatives of its own works.
One example is if we decide, as part of a liaison arrangement with
another SDO, to hand over maintenance of a specification to them.
There's at least one current instance of this in discussion; and it
looks like we have to go and get specific permissions from the
original authors. But it isn't a blanket permission - we aren't
about to relinquish control of RFC 2460 so that anybody can publish
an IPv6 spec with a few bytes reversed.
Bernard Aboba will arrange to have the IETF counsel review this
document and clarify the intellectual property language.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1525] Decker, E., McCloghrie, K., Langille, P., and A.
Rijsinghani, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Source
Routing Bridges", RFC 1525, September 1993.
[RFC4188] Norseth, K. and E. Bell, "Definitions of Managed Objects
for Bridges", RFC 4188, September 2005.
[I-D.ietf-bridge-ext-v2]
Harrington, D., "Definitions of Managed Objects for
Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and
Virtual LAN Extensions", draft-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-07 (work
in progress), August 2005.
[I-D.ietf-bridge-rstpmib]
Bell, E., "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with
Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol",
draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-09 (work in progress),
August 2005.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
9.2. Informative References
[IEEE802.1AB]
"[todo]", , August 2005.
[IEEE802.1AE]
"[todo]", , August 2005.
[PAR-IEEE802.1ah]
"http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/projects/
802-1ah.pdf", [todo] .
Appendix A. Contributors
Dan Romascanu
Avaya
Atidim Technology Park, Bldg. #3
Tel Aviv, 61131
Israel
+972 3-645-8414
dromasca@avaya.com
Tony Jeffree
Chair, 802.1 WG
11A Poplar Grove
Sale
Cheshire M33 3AX
UK
+44 161 973 4278
tony@jeffree.co.uk
Paul Congdon
Hewlett Packard Company
HP ProCurve Networking
8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662
Roseville, CA 95747
US
+1 916 785 5753
paul.congdon@hp.com
Bert Wijnen
Lucent Technologies
Schagen 33
3461 GL Linschoten
NL
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
+31-348-407-775
bwijnen@lucent.com
Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
+1 425 818 4011
bernarda@microsoft.com
Author's Address
David Harrington (editor)
Effective Software Consulting
Harding Rd
Portsmouth NH
USA
Phone: +1 603 436 8634
Email: dbharrington@comcast.net
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 19]