RE: Mib transition

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

Hi,

The MIB transition proposal will be reviewed by the MIB Doctors, the
IESG, the IAB, and legal counsel, on our side.

It will also go through review by the appropriate people on the IEEE
side.

The mib transfer document is trying to clarify the strategy so it can
be reviewed easily. Whether it will contain any legal agreement or not
will be up to the legal counsel of both organizations.

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:04 PM
> To: MReview
> Subject: RE: Mib transition
> 
> 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 trees, and to have the authority to obsolete superseded IETF 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
> 
> 
>