[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
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?
on b):
Documents for living successful technologies like the bridge MIBs need
maintenance (and you may recall that we left some changes out of the
latest revision of some of the MIBs just to drive the process to
completion). So either the IEEE has a way to update the MIB modules
that were orginially registered under IETF control or we make
interoperability a pain for the sake of keeping professional
standardizers and their organizations happy.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany