RE: Mib transition

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > Does the 802.1 WG want to _replace_ the IETF bridging-related 
> > MIB modules with essentially identical objects registered 
> > under their own OID tree?  That is the impression I get from 
> > Dan's message above and also from the following paragraph in 
> > Dave's I-D
> > draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-00.txt:
> 
> No, I do not believe that this is what the IEEE 802.1 wants and
> this is not what I meant to say.
...
> > If what they want to do is to retain the IETF objects that 
> > make sense, register all new objects under their own OID 
> > trees, and to have the authority to obsolete superseded IETF 
> > objects and make new conformance groups, then I have no 
> > argument with them.  
> 
> This is indeed the path that makes more sense, and I believe the
> IEEE 802.1 would get an advice to follow this path.

Thanks for the clarification.

> > But in order to do this they would still 
> > have to get change control over the top level OIDs used by 
> > the IETF bridging-related MIB modules.
> 
> Hopefully, we will find the way to solve the registration and
> ownership issues. Quoting Bert from a different e-mail:
> 
> 'But I think it is better [that] we get such right explicitly
> transfered to IEEE 802, or at least get something documented in
> an RFC or some formal record (like IESG meeting decisions or
> some such).'

I would have expected that such a transfer would require some action
by the IAB but of course I may be wrong.  In any case I agree that
an explicit statement in an RFC would be good ... hopefully that's
where David Harrington's draft is headed.

//cmh