Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Re: Comments for wis mib

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:54:52 +0200

> 
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Norseth, KC wrote:
> > We have till 11/21 to submit.  Unless there is a last-call for a new
> > SONET-MIB RFC, we should use the current rfc. ID's change, at least
> > rfc 2558 is currently an accepted RFC.
> 
> I'm afraid I must disagree.  The ETHER-WIS conformance statements will
> not even compile properly until the new enum sts192cSTM64(6) is added
> to the definition of sonetPathCurrentWidth.  That enum is not 
> currently
> in RFC 2558 but is on the editor's change list.  For that 
> reason we should
> reference the work in progress as soon as a draft is 
> available, whether
> or not it has made last call.  Of course, we can't publish 
> the ETHER-WIS
> MIB until that change is also published, which will require a 
> last call.
> 

Mike is right. Technically we created a linkage between the WIS MIB and
son-of-RFC 2558. Frankly speaking, this concerns me a little, and I
would like to discuss the issue in SLC with the atommib WG chairs and
Bert. At this point in time the reference should be to the new SONET MIB
Internet-Draft. 

> That reminds me of something else ...
> 
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > The Charter says that after the Utah meeting we need to 
> proceed to the
> > WG Last Call. It looks like we have chances to meet it.
> 
> We might indeed be able to do that, but we can't publish 
> until P802.3ae
> gets through its sponsor ballot, can we?
> 

I am not sure that the formal requirement is that strict relative to a
non-IETF standard, but for obvious reasons we do not aim publish the WIS
MIB as a Proposed Standard before the IEEE approved 802.3ae. Their
schedule says this will happen by March 2002.  I estimate that we will
need this time also to go through our WG Last Call process and through
the IESG quality review. It looks that by the time the IESG will do its
last call we will have the approved 802.3ae reference at hand.

> Mike

Regards,

Dan

_______________________________________________
Hubmib mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:40:26 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Bert.

I agree that there is reason for concern.  On the other hand, I don't
see any road around that _if_ we re-use the SONET-MIB for the WIS
application as the design team's draft proposes.  The current SONET-MIB
simply does not support STS-192c or STS-768c path widths.  Even if the
ETHER-WIS MIB did not specifically mention the new enum sts192cSTM64(6)
for sonetPathCurrentWidth, that enum would still need to be present in
the SONET-MIB before it could be used to manage the WIS path.

Mike

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:40:26 -0800 (PST)

Mike