RE: SNMP MIB for 10 Gb/s Ethernet
Thanks for keeping me in the loop.
Yep... if there is interest in the HIBMIB WG, then I will approve an
addition to the charter... but other IESG/IAB members get to get a
say as well... but let us assume they will also agree.
Dan/David... is the work far enuf on its way that maybe a 1 hour slot
in SanDiego is warranted to gauge the interest?
Bert
> ----------
> From: Dan Romascanu[SMTP:dromasca@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 6:36 PM
> To: 'David Law'
> Cc: 'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'; Bert Wijnen
> Subject: RE: SNMP MIB for 10 Gb/s Ethernet
>
> David,
>
> Just to clarify the IETF process - you may at any time submit an SNMP MIB
> document as an individual submission Internet-Draft. If it is related to
> Ethernet technology I would offer the Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB WG
> list for discussions in the IETF community. If you want to make out of
> such
> a proposal an official work item, with the intention of having at the end
> of
> the process the MIB enter the IETF standards track, we need to test the
> Working Group interest, and if the result is positive submit a new charter
> proposal to our Area Directors. Bert Wijnen is right now the AD coaching
> our
> Working Group, and he will would pass the revised charter for approval in
> the IESG.
>
> I fully agree with the need to establish a better communication between
> the
> two groups. I am looking forward for the meeting in Tampa.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Law [SMTP:David_Law@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Fri November 03 2000 15:36
> > To: Dan Romascanu
> > Cc: 'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'; Bert Wijnen
> > Subject: Re: SNMP MIB for 10 Gb/s Ethernet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I guess I am to blame for this one. In outline, what I was saying, was
> > that I
> > did not believe that the IEEE 802.3ae 10Gb/s Ethernet Task Force should
> > try to
> > write an entire SNMP MIB as was done recently in the case of IEEE Std
> > 802.3ad-2000 Link Aggregation. The reason I believe this is that I think
> > that
> > the management required for 10Gb/s Ethernet is an extension to the
> > existing
> > management, not, as was the case in Link Aggregation, an entirely new
> set
> > of
> > management. I therefore believed that we should do what we have done in
> > the past
> > (for example in the case of IEEE std 802.3z-1998 1Gb/s Ethernet) whereby
> > 802.3
> > only extended the management behaviors provided in Clause 30 and the
> > associated
> > SNMP MIB specifications are extended through the usual IETF processes.
> > That is
> > what I was referring to when I said 'produced by the IETF as usual'.
> >
> > As far as the IETF process is concerned I understood the following
> > (apologies if
> > I am wrong). A SNMP MIB proposal would have to be written. This would be
> > an
> > extension to your existing MIB, with the extensions tracking the 10Gb/s
> > additions. This would then be submitted to you as the Working Group
> chair
> > with a
> > request to consider to adopt it. It is then up to you as the Working
> Group
> > chair
> > to consider if you want to discuss it. If you do decide to discuss it,
> it
> > will
> > then be discussed at the following IETF meeting.
> >
> > Now clearly I did not intend that a MIB would be submitted to you 'cold'
> > without
> > discussing it with you or your group and I intended to contact you. I
> > however
> > wanted (possibly incorrectly) to make sure that we had an idea of what
> was
> > being
> > proposed as far as 10Gb/s was concerned, particularly in the area of the
> > WAN
> > PHY, and that we had an outline idea of these management additions
> before
> > we
> > contacted you. Clearly now is an excellent time and I certainly agree
> that
> > it
> > would be a good idea to establish some communication between the two
> > groups. The
> > fact that you are attending next weeks Plenary meeting is a great
> > opportunity
> > and I look forward to discussing this with you further.
> >
> > Regards,
> > David Law
> >
> >
> > PS: You may also wish to review the presentation 'MIB Extensions for WIS
> > Fault
> > Isolation' (URL:
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/ae/public/nov00/figueira_1_1100.pdf)
> > for more details of the WAN PHY related proposals.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dan Romascanu <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx> on 02/11/2000 12:00:48
> >
> > Sent by: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > To: "'stds-802-3-hssg @ieee.org'" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> > cc: (David Law/GB/3Com)
> > Subject: SNMP MIB for 10 Gb/s Ethernet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am trying to do my reading preparation for the Plenary meeting next
> > week.
> > Browsing through the (not-attended) last meetings materials I fell upon
> > the
> > presentation made in July by David Law, Edward Turner and Howard Frazier
> > concerning 'IEEE 802.3ae 10 Gb/s Ethernet Management MIB baseline
> > Proposal'.
> > In this presentation I see that it is proposed that 802.3ae does not
> > include
> > an SNMP MIB in its deliverables. It also makes twice mention of 'SNMP
> MIBs
> > produced by IETF as usual'. As I am chairing the IETF Ethernet
> Interfaces
> > and Hub MIB Working Group, I would like to know whether this was
> approved
> > as
> > the 802.3ae policy on MIB issues. If true it would probably be useful to
> > establish some communication between the two groups. I will be next week
> > in
> > Tampa, and we can have some discussions about this.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Dan Romascanu,
> > IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB WG Chair,
> > Director, Multiservice Networking Architecture,
> > EIS-CTO Group,
> > Avaya Communication,
> > +972-3-645-8414
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>