RE: Mib transition

["David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>]

Hi,

During the editing of the Bridge WG documents, I found getting
responses from **selected** 802.1 technical experts (e.g. the chairs
and editos) was just as easy as getting responses from **selected**
IETF technical experts (e.g. MIB Doctors).

It was just as difficult to get review from general 802.1 members
(other than the chairs and editors) as it was getting reviews by
general Bridge WG members (other than the chairs, editors, and MIB
Doctors).

I agree with Dan that the approach being used in 802.1 - that the MIB
module as a requirement as part of the project request (their charter)
- looks promising.

I think migrating the work to 802.1 for developing
802.1-technology-related MIB modules will be effective, much as the
IESG decision years ago that WGs in the IETF must produce their own
MIB modules rather than expecting the O&M area to do it for them has
improved IETF-technology-related MIB module development.

Note that IEEE 802.1 has membership voting rights that must be earned
- by doing reviews and attending meetings. That "hammer" is very
effective at getting reviews from the 802.1 WG members; During the
development of the 802.1AB and 802.1AE technologies, including the
associated MIB modules, the 802.1 WG got comments much more readily,
including comments and questions on the MIB modules even though the
level of MIB knowledge was limited. As an IETF WG chair, I can only
wish for the amount of participation they get.

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] 
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:39 AM
> To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
> Cc: David B Harrington; MReview
> Subject: RE: Mib transition
> 
>  
> 
> > -----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
> 
>