Re: Last Call: 'Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switch Networks Version 1.0' (RFC 2613) to Draft

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 09:28 AM 4/12/2003 -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, The IESG wrote:
>> 

I want to hear from Bert on the normative references to RFC 2021.
If he thinks we should hold back on advancement of RFC 2613, then
that is fine with me.  This is a general problem with advancing
MIBs.  It could be an important issue, but it's extremely unlikely
the imported TCs will change, and the registration OIDs cannot change.

Andy


>> The IESG has received a request to consider RFC 2613 'Remote Network 
>> Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switch Networks Version 1.0' as a Draft.  
>> The original document was a product of the Remote Network Monitoring 
>> Working Group of the IETF.
>> 
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the 
>> iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-4-24.
>> 
>> Files can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2613.txt
>
>After viewing the implementation report
>
>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFC2613-Implementation.txt
>
>I would agree with the WG's assessment that the SMON-MIB is ready for
>advancement to Draft Standard.  I do, however, have two comments:
>
>1.) RFC 2613 has a number of out-of-date informative references
>(namely all of the RFC 257x SNMPv3 references).  It might be
>desirable to update the document to use the most recent MIB
>boilerplate and security template and associated refererences (see
>http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html and
>http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html).  This of course presumes
>that an editor can be found to do the work, and it is understood
>that such resources are scarce these days.
>
>2.) RFC 2613 refers to RFC 2021 (RMON2-MIB), and according to
>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFC2021-Implementation.txt
>that MIB module won't be advancing to DS.  Since SMON-MIB imports
>LastCreateTime, DataSource, rmonConformance, and probeConfig from
>RMON2-MIB, this reference is normative.  RFC 2026 (p.16, end of
>section 4.2.4) says that "[s]tandards track specifications normally
>must not depend on other standards track specifications which are at
>a lower maturity level."   In order to advance the SMON-MIB it would
>be necessary to make an exception in this case.  That would probably
>be reasonable since the imported items are either textual conventions
>that are not likely to be obsoleted or object identifier values that
>can't change at all.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike Heard