Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Resolution for CIDs 4005 through 4012



--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Thanks, Edward.

 

The cite you mention (Annex C.2 and hence to IETF RFC 4181, then to http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html, and then to RFCs 3410, 2578, 2579, 2580):

1.	Is talking about references in the references section of an RFC.  We can generalize that to one of the references sections of our Standard, including the references in the “overview section” of C.3.  I’ll claim that is the front matter, up to the first object definition (the first OBJECT-TYPE macro, i.e., dot11StationConfigTable).  After that, you’re into the body of the MIB, and not the “overview section” anymore.
2.	Even if RFC 4181 does apply, it only says that all normative references should point to the most recent version of a specification.  It doesn’t say that such normative references are needed in object definitions, or anything about when they are needed/desired.
3.	The only hint about the usage of REFERENCE, is this (clause 7.6 of RFC2578 for the OBJECT-TYPE macro, repeated verbatim for other macros as well, and in RFCs 2579 and 2580): 

7.6.  Mapping of the REFERENCE clause

The REFERENCE clause, which need not be present, contains a textual cross-reference to some other document, either another information module which defines a related assignment, or some other document which provides additional information relevant to this definition.

a.	I note that this pretty clearly says the purpose of the REFFENCE clause is to provide a reference into _some other document_.

 

And, separately, I’ll claim that the vast majority of our MIB attributes don’t have one, and nobody has ever complained (or even noticed) about the missing ones.  I think this is evidence that they are not really needed, and this is not how people really understand/locate how the attribute is used in the body text.

 

Given all that, I see no compelling reason to have these REFERENCE clauses within our MIB object definitions.  In fact, I see a pretty compelling argument that they should be removed.

 

Mark

 

From: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:30 PM
To: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IEEE802.11 TGmc <STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Resolution for CIDs 4005 through 4012

 

Hi Mark,

 

For MIB, we follow the recommendation in Annex C.2 to draft it based on IETF RFC 4181 (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4181.txt).    In Section 3, there is a requirement that "In general, each normative reference SHOULD point to the most recent version of the specification in question".

 

In Annex C.3, 

[1]  We have approximately 50 MIB variables that cite a particular subclause (or subclauses) of the latest version of the IEEE 802.11 standards as a normative reference, whereas the remaining MIB variables do not.  

[2]  There are also a few MIB modules that talks about an object (or objects) of an OBJECT-GROUP  is deprecated in the latest version of the  IEEE 802.11 standards, and therefore the OBJECT-GROUP is superseded by a new group.

 

It would be a good discussion during the CRC call on April 22.

 

Regards,

Edward

 

 

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:04 PM <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

All,

 

I’ll repeat a comment I made previously (maybe on the same call where we did 4184, 4185, and 4186?):  Why are we fixing these REFERENCEs instead of just removing them?  Is there a rule/suggestion that they are helpful (in some Editor’s Guide, etc.)?  Given that the vast majority of our MIB attributes don’t have one, and nobody has ever complained (or even noticed) about the missing ones, I would just remove them all.

 

Mark

 

From: ***** 802.11 REVm - Revision Maintainance List ***** 
_______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this
CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.

SELF SERVICE OPTION:
Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and
then amend your subscription on the form provided.  If you require removal from the reflector
press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________