Subject: RE: IPCDN MIB status ?

From: Yost William <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:48:19 -0500

So to be sure I understand the steps remaining for these MIBs to go through:

Right now the RF-06 Mib has been submitted to be posted as an Internet Draft
Next it will be posted as an Internet Draft
Then WG Last Call will be announced
Then IESG Last Call will be announced
Then they will be submitted as Draft Standard RFC's

The Cable Device-06 MIB has yet to be submited to be posted as an Internet
Draft.

The above assumes there will be no further revisions either before the WG
Last Call is announced or before the IESG Last Call is announced.  There
could be revisions at these stages.

Is this correct?

Thanks.
-------------------- William H. Yost, Thomson Consumer Electronics (317)
587-4816 [email-masked] --------------------------
(Remove $ signs from Email address to reply)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	[email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:17 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	Re: IPCDN MIB status ?
> 
> Gee - thanks.. remind me to nag you in public next time....
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> ps - I sent the RF mib to internet drafts a few days ago and have the CM
> draft at home for a final review before sending it off tomorrow.  
> 
> 
> At 03:58 PM 2/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >Mike,
> >
> >	Maybe I'm confused, but from the outside it looks like the RF MIB
> >and CD MIB are stable/ready to go.  Last I heard, the only changes in the
> >last edits were to appease the IETF's SNMP wizards.  Vendors are
> >legitimately waiting for RFCs to appear before shipping the revised MIBs.
> >Operators need the capabilities in the current IETF versions of these
> >MIBs.  Further delay isn't helping anyone, as near as I can tell.
> >
> >	What is the status and when can these go to WG Last Call,
> >then IESG Last Call, then standards-track RFC ?
> >
> >(Apologies: If I sound frustrated, it is because I am frustrated)
> >
> >Yours,
> >
> >Ran

---

From: Guenter Roeck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:34:02 -0800 (PST)

My understanding was that the WG last call was long since over.
Does this mean we made a step back sometime in the last six months ?

Guenter

---

From: [email-masked] (Mike St. Johns)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:58:34 -0800

OK - here's the story.

The -6 RF mib is substantially the one that will go forward; there are *minor* 
cosmetic changes to the text body and one clarification change to the MIB (the 
deletion of BITS as an imported item - the BITS construct remains, but does 
not need to be imported).  This will be either -7 or -8 depending on whether I 
can get ahead of the ID editor.  This should pass the MIB doctor with no 
further changes.

The -6 CM mib had a number of problems even after a substantial editing pass 
by me - the MIB doctor didn't like a lot of the filtering stuff and wanted 
much more explanation.  This has taken me more time that I like to complete 
primarily due to the DOCSIS1.1 efforts interfering.  I have a draft complete 
and am bench checking it - I may have to tweak the security section a bit to 
match up with a "new" template structure.  I'm hoping to send this off to the 
ID editor today (or at worst Thursday night).    I'm going to run a WG last 
call (again) in parallel with the MIB doctors review and hopefully no one will 
object to the boilerplate that's been added.  The bare mib I sent out at the 
beginning of the year has not changed and is the one embedded in the ID.

I'm not planning on holding a meeting at this IETF as I think these work items 
are complete and there's no benefit.  I will be holding one at the following 
meeting to discuss what changes/additions are going to be necessary for 
DOCSIS1.1 and packet cable.

Sorry for the delay - I wasn't anticipating having to edit these documents 
this much.

Mike