RE: Mib transition

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de] 
> Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 10:54 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: David B Harrington; MReview
> Subject: Re: Mib transition
> 
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 10:01:38PM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> 
> > I agree with Juergen that requests for changes in the IEEE 
> 802.1 MIB 
> > modules may happen more often in the future that we want to believe.
> > However, solution (a) (continue to publish updates to the 
> relevant 802 
> > MIB under IETF control) proved to be unpractical because 
> there is no 
> > longer any consistent constituency in the IETF to do this 
> work, while 
> > solution (b) (the IETF officially transfers the control of the top 
> > level OIDs used by these MIBs over to the IEEE) is not what 
> the IEEE 
> > 802.1 WG wants. The solution to me seems to be in assisting 
> the IEEE 
> > 802.1 to create new MIB extensions at the required quality in their 
> > own OID space, while obsolescing gradually the IETF documents as 
> > needed without further adding anything new.
> 
> on a):
> 
> Having edited the latest BRIGE-MIB to completion, I must say 
> that the biggest obstacle was to get input from IEEE subject 
> experts. Can we be sure that the subject matter experts will 
> support MIB editing jobs adequately in the IEEE?

I believe that the situation should improve, as future MIB modules
become (already happening actually) chartered items in the IEEE 802.1
WG. The subject matter experts are in the room. 

Regards,

Dan