RE: MIB transition

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

Hi Mike,

> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, David B Harrington wrote:
> > I don't think we have the right to tell them how their process
> > should work, and that they MUST pass MIB Doctor review before
> > making changes to our standards.  We would have no authority to
> > force that.
> 
> I happen to agree with that, but I wanted to know what you thought.
> 
We agree.

> > If we do not transfer the rights to the existing documents, then
> > we CAN force any changes to the IETF standard MIB modules to be
> > put through MIB Doctor review.
> 
> So if the IEEE wanted to modify, e.g., the BRIDGE-MIB, then some
> representative of the 802.1 WG would need to submit an rfc4188bis
> I-D through the OPS AD for NM for standards-track consideration, and
> it would then have to go through the usual approval process?  I
> guess that could be made to work, but in addition to MIB doctor
> technical review (which is a good thing) it would mean having to run
> the rest of the IETF CLR gauntlet (which probably is not).

I agree we want to avoid the IETF CLR cycle. This would be a great
motivator for 802.1 to NOT modify the Bridge-MIB unless it was really
necessary. I believe there are many alternatives available to avoid
editing the existing documents, ways that do not cause
interoperability problems. I would rather see those used than to
modify the documents unnecessarily.

I have no problem with an agreement that if the 802.1 WG feels it is
necessary to modify the IETF standard MIBs, that they could submit
their proposal (i.e. their proposed updated MIB in their PDF format
(with ASCII so we could compile it) for IETF MIB Doctor review, and
upon approval of the MIB Doctors and Area Director, that a
previously-prepared transfer of rights be given to them so they can
publish un update as an IEEE standard, thus getting the MIB Doctor
review with less of the CLR cycling.

Let me comment that there have been a number of suggestions for
modifications to the Bridge-MIB in the 802.1 WG that showed me there
are members of that group that simply do not think about
interoperability the way the MIB Doctors do. The MIB Doctors have no
special sway in the 802.1 WG, except to the degree they show
themselves to be experts; there is no officially required MIB Doctor
review as in the IETF. 

MIB Doctors being a scarce resource, the reviews for 802.1 are as MIB
Doctors are available and willing - we have no guarantees that a
change to the IETF standard MIBs would get as thorough a review as we
believe should be done. I expect the chairs of 802.1 would ensure that
they did happen, but there is less certainty of that than in the IETF.

I have no issue with the 802.1 WG writing their own Mib modules, with
or without Mib Doctor review, bu tI have a problem with the IEEE
editing and republishing an IETF standard without the IETF having any
enforceable approval rights in that process.

> 
> //cmh
> 
> 
>