RE: Mib transition

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

Hi Juergen, 

> 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?

Can we be sure that the subject matter experts in
[L3VPN/IMSS/VRRP/CCAMP/IPCDN/IPSP/OSPF/IPS/SIP/MPLS/DHC/MIP6/IDR/etc.]
Will support MIB editing jobs adequately? If the AD requires that the
MIB be part of the charter, maybe.

The chairs of 802.1 are requiring that MIB module development be
included in their project PARs (charters).

 
> 
> 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). 

Please recall that we left some work out of the revisions we did
because our work was explicitly related to IEEE 802.1t, u, v, and w. 

We did not work on updating our MIB modules to incorporate work done
for 802.1s, and a host of other work they did during the four years
they waited for us to complete our tasks, The exra work we left out
was not within the charter of our WG.

> 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.

In the ISMS WG, we are appending to the SNMPv3 STD, not revising the
original documents, and we are ensuring that we will not need to
republish the original documents with updates (and the work we are
doing in ISMS is less backeards-compatible than most IEEE updates). I
am not convinced the IEEE 802.1 WG needs to have change control over
the IETF standards.

I have no problem with saying, "if the 802.1 WG determines that the
existing documents must be updated, and the IETF agrees that no
alternative approach is equally as good, then the IETF will transfer
the necessary rights to the 802.1 WG to perform the updates." But I
don't think we should just transfer the rights because, maybe,
sometime, this may be necessary.

Can we open the discussion to more than this one issue? 

- Do the Mib Doctors understand what might be asked of you if you
agree to review an 802.1 MIB document?
- Thus far, only the ASN.1 portion of a MIB document is being made
accessible in ASCII format; the surrounding text is only available in
PDF format. Will this be a problem if you are doing reviews?


> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 
> 28725 Bremen, Germany
> 
>