Bridge WG D. Harrington, Ed.
Internet-Draft Effective Software Consulting
Expires: September 1, 2006 February 28, 2006
Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge WG to IEEE 802.1 WG
draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document describes the plan to transition responsibility for
bridging-related MIB modules from the IETF Bridge WG to the IEEE
802.1 WG, which develops the bridging technology the MIB modules are
designed to manage.
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. New IEEE MIB Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. New MIB PARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. IEEE MIB Modules in ASCII format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. OID Registration for New MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Editing New IEEE MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Current Bridge WG Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Transferring Current Bridge WG Documents . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Updating IETF MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. IANA OID Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Mailing List Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Bridge WG Mailing List Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IETF MIB Doctor Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Review Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Review Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.4. Review Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Communicating the Transition Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Intellectual Property Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Sample text for IEEE to request rights from
authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
1. Introduction
This document describes the plan to transition responsibility for
bridging-related MIB modules from the IETF Bridge WG to the IEEE
802.1 WG, which develops the bridging technology the MIB modules are
designed to manage. The current Bridge WG documents are
o "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges" [RFC4188],
o "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Rapid Spanning
Tree Protocol" [RFC4318]
o "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes,
Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions" [RFC4363], and
o Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges
[RFC1525]
This document is meant to establish some clear expectations between
IETF and IEEE about the transition of Bridge WG MIB modules to the
IEEE 802.1 WG, so that the plan can be reviewed by the IESG, IAB,
IETF, and IEEE. There might be some case-by-case situations that
arise, but this document describes the general strategy.
1.1. Motivation
Having SNMP MIB modules to provide management functionality for its
technologies is important for the 802.1 community, so it needs to
charter this work as part of the Project Authorization Requests
(PARs) for each new project, to ensure that resources are being
mobilized for execution. This is also true with respect to MIB
support for already completed 802.1 projects - maintenance projects
need to include the development of SNMP MIB modules.
The IESG has mandated that IETF WGs that produce a protocol are also
required to develop the corresponding MIB module rather than leaving
that to "the SNMP experts" to do later. Part of the motivation was
obviously to make the protocols more manageable, but part of the
motivation was also balancing the workload better and getting the
content experts more involved in the management design. While the
IESG does not mandate that other standards development organizations
(SDOs) do so, if such work comes into the IETF, then we want the
other SDO to bring in subject matter expertise to work with us, or,
even better, to take the lead themselves.
The manpower problem is certainly an aspect that is relevant. IEEE
802 MIB documents could be developed in the IETF, but only if the
subject matter experts come to IETF to actually participate (lead)
the work. The content experts need to be more involved in the MIB
module development, and resources need to be dedicated to completing
the work, whether editing is done in the IEEE or the IETF. The IETF
is OK with other organizations (like 802) doing MIB documents
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
themselves, and the IETF offers to help review them from an SNMP/MIB/
SMI perspective. This is true even after the transition, since
quality MIB modules are important to smooth management of the
Internet and the technologies it runs on.
2. New IEEE MIB Work
2.1. New MIB PARs
The IEEE-SA Standards Board New Standards Committee (NesCom) deals
with the Projects Approval Requests - see
http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/. PARs are roughly the
equivalent of an IETF Working Group Charter, and include information
concerning the scope, purpose, and justification for standardization
projects.
Following early discussions concerning the transfer of MIB work from
the IETF Bridge MIB WG to the IEEE 802.1 WG, the development of SMIv2
MIB modules associated with IEEE 802.1 projects has been included
within the scope of the work of new projects.
For example the PAR form of the IEEE 802.1ah - Provider Backbone
Bridges [PAR-IEEE802.1ah] includes in Section 13 - "Scope of Proposed
Project" an explicit reference to 'support management including
SNMP'.
Although it is not mandatory for the MIB development work to be
specified explicitly in a new PAR to have the work done - see work
done in IEEE 802.1AB [IEEE802.1AB]and IEEE 802.1AE [IEEE802.1AE]- it
is RECOMMENDED that IEEE 802.1 WG PARs include explicit wording in
the scope section wherever there is need for MIB development as part
of the standard.
Since the IETF Bridge MIB WG does not intend to develop MIB modules
in the future, it is recommended to direct submitters of new work in
the bridge management space to the IEEE 802.1 WG, and to not publish
their proposed MIB modules as Internet-Drafts.
2.2. IEEE MIB Modules in ASCII format
Having MIB modules be made freely and openly available in an ASCII
format will be a critical factor in having the SNMP community accept
the transfer of 802.1 MIB development from IETF Bridge WG to IEEE
802.1 WG. While 802.1 can certainly decide they're going to develop
MIB modules in the PDF format that they use for their documents
without publishing an ASCII version, most network management systems
can import a MIB module that is in ASCII format but not one in PDF
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
format. Not publishing an ASCII version of the MIB module would
negatively impact implementers and deployers of MIB modules, and
would make IETF review of MIB modules more difficult.
The 802.1 WG web site requires a password for access to standards in
development. The WG has started making the MIB module portion of
their documents available as separate ASCII files during project
development, and allowing IETF personnel to access these documents
for review purposes.
IEEE 802 has a policy that approved specifications are available for
a fee for the first six months after completion, and freely available
six months after they are completed. Once the specification is
completed, the ASCII version of the MIB module is made freely
available on the 802.1 WG website
(http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/MIBS.html).
There may be some issues about what gets included in the freely
available specification. The SMIv2 MIB module alone will probably be
insufficient; some discussion of the structure of the MIB, the
anticipated use cases for MIB objects, the relationship to other MIB
modules, and security considerations will also need to be made
available to ensure appropriate implementation and deployment of the
MIB module within the Internet environment. For most implementers,
the freely available specification six months after completion will
be adequate.
The 2001 version of the SMIv2 MIB module for 802.1X (the IEEE8021-
PAE-MIB) has been published in ASCII on
http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/MIBS.html. This document should be
updated with enough surrounding documentation to be clear, and to
address deployment issues such as security considerations.
The 802.1 WG submitted the IEEE8021-PAE-MIB document to be published
as an informational RFC. In the future, it would be better to point
interested parties to the appropriate 802.1 WG public website to
prevent confusion over who is maintaining the document.
2.3. OID Registration for New MIB Modules
As the 802.1 WG updates the 802.1 standards, new MIB modules will
need to be developed and registered, and they will be registered
under the 802.1 registration branch, as was done with the 802.1X MIB
module.
IEEE has an established set of arcs in 802 for registration of OIDs
and it makes sense for the IEEE to administer the registration of MIB
module assignments for MIB modules they maintain, rather than asking
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
IANA to provide such registrations. The administration of the 802
arc is documented in IEEE 802b.
2.4. Editing New IEEE MIB Modules
MIB module editors will need to be regular attendees and become
members over time, as is the norm for 802.1 membership. Showing up
at the meetings is the important factor because official IEEE work is
done in the meetings, rather than on mailing lists as in the IETF.
For exceptional conditions, the Chair has the power to bestow
membership ahead of the usual attendance requirement.
During the transition, to accommodate IETF candidates for editor,
work can take place over email and outside of the meetings initially
3. Current Bridge WG Documents
3.1. Transferring Current Bridge WG Documents
While reviewing the legal issues associated with transferring Brtidge
WG documents to the IEEE 802.1 WG, it was concluded that the IETF
does not have sufficient legal authority to make the transfer without
the consent of the document authors.
RFC1286, RFC1493 and RFC 1525 apparently precede any specific IETF
document describing the copyright and intellectual property rights
that authors grant to the IETF. RFC2674 falls under RFC 2026
[RFC2026] rules. The three recent updates, [RFC4188], [RFC4318], and
[RFC4363] fall under BCP 78, as documented in RFC3978 [RFC3978].
To permit the maintenance responsibilities for documents containing
the BRIDGE-MIB [RFC4188] and the P-BRIDGE-MIB and Q-BRIDGE-MIB
[RFC4363] and RSTP-MIB [RFC4318] to become the responsibility of the
IEEE 802.1 WG, the IEEE 802.1 WG will need to get permission from the
authors, and/or the companies to whom the authors have assigned their
intellectual property rights in these documents, so they can publish
derivative works.
The IETF lawyer and the IEEE IPR lawyer have agreed upon a sample
letter for use by the IEEE 802.1 WG to request the necessary
permissions from the authors, which is shown in Appendix B. The
Bridge WG chairs reviewed the author lists for the documents and
provided the list of authors and their last known addresses and the
documents with which they were associated to the IEEE lawyer.
The IETF will retain all its rights in the published RFCs.
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
3.2. Updating IETF MIB Modules
The updates to the Bridge WG documents addresssed changes documented
in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v, and 802.1w. These amendments were merged
with 802.1D-1998 by the IEEE 802.1 WG to form 802.1D-2004. The
Bridge WG did not address changes that resulted from that merger of
documents.
The 802.1 WG will need to work through the management objects in the
existing documents to determine whether they are consistent with new
emerging specifications, including 802.1D-2004. During the final
work on these documents in the Bridge WG, there were some issues that
we decided not to resolve and to allow them to be dealt with as part
of the future work in the 802.1 WG.
Work on the following items was deferred to the IEEE:
the 'autoEdgePort' parameter (802.1D-2004 clause 17.3.3)
the BridgeID object
references to 802.1D-1998 were not updated to 802.1D-2004
some objects in RFC4363 may have been obsoleted in 802.1D-2004
Description of dot1dPortOutboundAccessPriority seems wrong, but it
followed the description in 802.1D-1998.
An issue was raised concerning dot1dTpPortInFrames and
dot1dTpPortOutFrames. This is an issue left over from RFC 1493.
It was thought that the IEEE might be able to write separate
documents containing updates to their technologies, such as 802.1Q,
and include a separate MIB module to augment the IETF MIB modules.
However, recent changes to the IEEE standards are expected to require
changing the way the MIB tables are INDEXED, which is not allowed
under SMI rules, so the IEEE will need to rewrite the MIB modules,
and assign object identifiers under the ieee802 branch. The IETF MIB
Doctors will work with the IEEE 802.1 WG, as requested and as
available, to make the transition, attempting to maintain backwards
compatibility where possible.
For backwards compatibility, the existing IETF documents will still
be valid and remain unchanged.
If an 802.1 WG document must update or obsolete the IETF version of a
Bridge MIB document, the 802.1 WG can create and submit an internet-
draft to the IESG to be published as an RFC that points to the openly
available IEEE copy and the IEEE standard. The IESG would need to
approve the publication of the RFC. The RFC status would be
reflected in the RFC-INDEX and also in the database so it will be
reflected on the RFC-Editor web page, so we don't have a problem with
synchronization between the copies being published.
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
3.3. Clarifications
As the 802.1 WG handles the MIB development, the IEEE-standard
"managed variables" and the associated IEEE MIB module objects will
probably correspond, as many existing BRIDGE-MIB objects already
correspond to 802.1 management variables, such as these from 802.1Q.
Virtual Bridge MIB object IEEE 802.1Q-2003 Reference
dot1qBase
dot1qVlanVersionNumber 12.10.1.1 read bridge vlan config
dot1qMaxVlanId 12.10.1.1 read bridge vlan config
dot1qMaxSupportedVlans 12.10.1.1 read bridge vlan config
dot1qNumVlans
dot1qGvrpStatus 12.9.2.1/2 read/set garp
applicant controls
IEEE allows definitions to be clarified in a manner that can actually
alter the semantics of a managed variable somewhat, such as by
changing the range. SMI rules generally prevent changing the
semantics of defined MIB objects without obsoleting the current
object and replacing it with an object with a new descriptor and OID
registration. It is expected that, once both an IEEE MIB definition
and the "managed variable" descriptions are in the same document,
this problem will go away, as IEEE can update both at the same time
in the approved manner.
The need to fix a description in an IETF Bridge MIB module in a
manner that would not be SMI legal would precipitate the need to
define an IEEE MIB module, which might copy and replace the whole
IETF MIB module, or just add the necessary objects. Copying the IETF
MIB module and changing the descriptors and reassigning new IEEE OIDs
would not be backwards compatible, and existing applications would
need to be updated to access the new objects, so it is recommended
that the IETF MIB module not be copied and modified unless really
necessary.
The current practice in the 802.1 WG is to define the management
variable and then a mapping table to associated MIB module objects
(as shown above). The 802.1 WG could redefine the mapping from an
IEEE managed variable to a new IEEE MIB object if the 802.1
management variable semantics changed, thus allowing the 802.1 WG to
'do it right' by SMI rules, supplementing the old MIB object with a
new one. An updated mapping would be reflected in the compliance
clause of the supplemental SMIv2 MIB module; it may be desirable to
document the old mapping information in the description clause of the
new object in the SMIv2 MIB module.
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
Often the mapping of 802 variables to MIB objects isn't and doesn't
have to be a 1:1 mapping. In the future 802 variables may be
invented with Web-based services in mind, but today the primarily
focus is on SNMP usage, and incorporating MIB modules into the specs
themselves will likely further that focus. The level of redirection
that exists today between 802 variables and MIB objects might be
useful for the transition process when changing 802 management
variable semantics and supplementing MIB objects.
The existing Bridge documents represent the current state of bridging
management, and the documents contain compliance clauses describing
the current requirements to be compliant to the IETF standards. As
the IEEE develops additional MIB modules, new compliance clauses will
define the new "state of the art", without needing to obsolete the
old MIB objects or the old compliance clauses. Therefore, the plan
is that the current Bridge MIB modules will be "frozen in time", and
updated only via the development of independent MIB modules by the
802.1 WG.
3.4. IANA OID Registration
The IETF and IEEE 802.1 have separate registration branches in the
OID tree. The Bridge MIB modules are registered under the IETF
branch, and some assignments are maintained by IANA.
As 802.1 standards are modified, the changes may include needed
modifications to supplement the existing tables. This can be handled
by developing an IEEE MIB module that augments the existing tables,
or reuses the indexing of the existing tables. The new modules can
be assigned under the IEEE arc.
When the changes only require the additional of one or two objects to
the existing MIB modules, it may seem simpler for the 802.1 WG to
define additional managed objects within the IANA-controlled
registration tree. This approach is not recommended because of the
difficulties of coordinating the changes between the two
organizations, and working the changes through the processes while
trying to remain timely for each organization. Such additions would
probably require approval by the Area Directors of Operations and
Management after IETF MIB Doctor review. This would create
dependencies between the work of the two organizations, and it might
generate special cases for IANA to prevent the IEEE being bogged down
by IETF processes..
The approach of developing an IEEE MIB module and defining a new
compliance clause is simpler than dealing with such dependencies.
We need a balance between disruption to existing implementations and
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
efficiency in making changes. Keeping the existing trees in their
place minimizes disruption to existing implementations.
4. Mailing List Discussions
The Bridge WG has completed its documents, and the WG has been
closed,
The mailing list will remain open for a while. The Bridge WG chairs
will discourage discussion of ongoing IEEE MIB module work on the
Bridge WG list and ask that the discussion be moved to the IEEE list,
with a notice comparable to:
Note that this work is out of scope for the Bridge WG mailing list.
The appropriate mailing list for IEEE 802.1 MIB module discussion
is STDS-802-1-L@listserv.ieee.org.
To subscribe to the STDS-802-1-L list, go to
http://www.ieee802.org/1/email-pages/
To see the general information about 802,1, including how they
work and how to participate, go to http://www.ieee802.org/1/
To see presentations on the technology, go to
http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/ and look in the docs2004,
docs2005, and docs2006 directories.
5. Bridge WG Mailing List Announcements
If requested by the 802.1 WG chair or vice-chair, the Bridge WG
chairs will post an announcement that the 802.1 WG is planning to
start work on developing or updating bridge-related MIB modules and
is seeking volunteers.
The Bridge WG chairs watch the 802.1 list, and if something
significant to the Bridge WG comes up, such as the 802.1 chairs call
for review of three fairly-stable pre-PAR proposals, or a decision
needs to be made between three proposals after a PAR has been
approved, or an official Draft is completed and needs review, then
the Bridge WG chairs can post the document(s) on the Bridge WG
mailing list for extra review.
6. IETF MIB Doctor Reviews
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
6.1. Introduction
The leaders of the Bridge WG, 802.1 WG, IETF O&M area, and IEEE 802
area have discussed having IETF MIB Doctors review 802 developed MIB
modules. This is a loose offering.
The expectation is that IETF will maintain a group of MIB Doctors who
can review 802 developed MIB modules, when a MIB Doctor is available
and willing to do such review. It is the choice of individual MIB
Doctors to provide technical advice and MIB Doctor reviews, and it is
the willingness of the 802.1 editors and the support of the 802.1
chairs that determine whether the advice is accepted or not. It is
not formalized as in the IETF.
In the IETF, the O&M Area Directors get "pushed" by other Area
Directors to have MIB module documents reviewed by MIB Doctors when
they start to come to WG Last Call, IETF Last Call, and certainly no
later than when they appear on the IESG agenda. This demand requires
prioritization of requests for MIB Doctor reviews by the Area
Directors and prioritization by MIB Doctors when deciding whether to
accept a request to review documents.
When there are many IETF MIB documents in the queue and an IEEE MIB
module document comes along for review, it will be the choice of the
individual MIB Doctors whether to accept such a request, and how to
prioritize their work.
It will be helpful to MIB Doctors if the 802.1 chair requests a
review early in development, after a MIB module design has been
established but before an editor has done much detailing of the MIB
module, so a MIB Doctor can ensure that the table relationships and
indexing are reasonable. Then it will be helpful if the 802.1 chair
requests reviews only for important ballots, such as sponsor ballots,
rather than for every revision.
It is recommended that the 802.1 WG establish their own MIB Doctor
review team, to provide a review of MIB modules and to resolve most
issues before requesting a review from the IETF MIB Doctors. This
will help the 802.1 WG avoid delays caused by dependency on IETF MIB
Doctors, and pre-reviewed documents will make it easier for an IETF
MIB Doctor to find time to perform a requested review. The IETF is
willing to make a loose offering to help the 802.1 WG establish and
train such an IEEE MIB Doctor team.
6.2. Review Guidelines
The IETF has developed a set of "Best Current Practice" MIB review
guidelines [RFC4181], so editors and other WG members can check the
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
document against the guidelines before requesting a MIB Doctor
review. The 802.1 WG editor should utilize the MIB review guidelines
before requesting a MIB Doctor review.
The MIB review guidelines are also intended to help editors by
guiding MIB Doctors, so reviews by different MIB Doctors will remain
fairly consistent. Each MIB Doctor has their own "pet peeves", and
the guidelines can help an editor know whether a review point is
based on the consensus of the MIB Doctors, or a pet peeve.
Many SMI constraints and IETF editing constraints and best current
practices are discussed in the mib-review-guidelines. However, many
aspects of good MIB design (e.g. table fate-sharing, good index
choices, etc.) are more art than science, and are not discussed in
the guidelines. Those might be more useful to other SDOs (and IETF
editors) than guidelines relating to IETF boilerplate requirements.
The MIB Doctors have discussed starting a design guidelines document.
The MIB review guidelines were used when reviewing the 802.1AB
[IEEE802.1AB]and 802.1AE [IEEE802.1AE]documents. During those
reviews, there were some issues found with the review-guidelines that
we need to evaluate further.
In the IETF boilerplates, some of the terms have different meaning in
IETF and IEEE, and different editing style guidelines are being used
by the different bodies. It would be good to develop an 802 MIB
boilerplate that is consistent with the IETF boilerplate, in purpose
if not in terminology.
There are many IETF-specific aspects of the MIB review guidelines,
and the IEEE should probably formalize their own guidelines to
supplement the IETF guidelines. For example, an IETF standard MIB
module must use the approved boilerplates for MIB modules, IANA
considerations, IPR, and ID-nits that do not directly apply to IEEE
MIB module work. For the most part, the IETF guidelines have been
applied to IEEE MIB modules with minor adjustments, even though the
IEEE has its own rules of document formatting, IPR, and OID
assignments.
An IETF MIB document template that contains all the required
sections, following RFC Editor guidelines and the MIB review
guidelines, is under development to help editors get started
developing a MIB module document. The template will help MIB Doctors
check new MIB modules more efficiently by providing the most up-to-
date MIB module boilerplate, with sections in the preferred order,
suggestions for what to include in certain sections, and the
references required to support boilerplate text. It is recommended
that the IEEE 802.1 WG establish a comparable template, following the
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
IEEE editing guidelines and the MIB review guidelines where
appropriate.
Such an IEEE template could simply result in being the management
clause of an 802.1 document, to be filled in with technology-specific
information. In 802.1AB, the MIB clause was restructured to include
modified IETF boilerplates and security considerations. This might
be a good start on such an IEEE template. It would be helpful to MIB
Doctors and editors if the unmodified template was available in ASCII
format for comparison to a document in development, to verify that
the appropriate boilerplate text is being used.
When the 802.1 WG creates a PAR for 802.1 Bridge MIB maintenance, the
creation of such a template might be included in the PAR.
6.3. Review Format
The 802.1 WG uses a template for comments, in the following format,
so the onus to provide new text is on the reviewer, not the editor.
NAME:
COMMENT TYPE:
[E=Editorial, ER=Editorial Required]
[T=Technical, TR=Technical Required]
CLAUSE:
PAGE:
LINE:
COMMENT START:
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
MIB Doctor reviews in the IETF are typically done in simple text
email, and often contain a long list of review comments. MIB Doctor
reviews sometimes raise a general design issue rather than an issue
with specific text, and some MIB Doctor comments refer to "global"
problems, such as many objects that do not specify persistence
requirements.
For global problems, IETF MIB Doctors are not required to provide the
replacement text for each of these instances when doing 802.1 MIB
module reviews. For example, if the naming of objects does not
follow recommended conventions throughout the document, the MIB
Doctor can point out the relevant clause in the MIB review guidelines
without suggesting each replacement object name. This is an
important concession to the IETF MIB Doctors, to better suit the
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
nature of their reviews, even though this puts the onus on the editor
to fix the problem without explicit suggested changes.
During the transition, the chair and vice-chair of the 802.1 WG are
willing to accept simple emails, as long as they give enough
information to understand what the problem is and how to fix it. The
comments should include a problem description, a suggested
resolution, and a page and line number. It would be helpful if
comments are submitted in the preferred format, since this makes it
easier for the editor to understand exactly what is being requested,
to log the comment for review, and to review the comment in the
meeting environment. The majority of MIB comments can usually be
handled outside of the official balloting process.
6.4. Review Weight
In the IETF, MIB Doctor review happens as part of the process of
approving a standard. When a document is submitted to the IESG for
approval as a standard, the Area Director/IESG requests a MIB Doctor
review. Failure to pass the review can stop forward progress of a
document in the standardization process at the discretion of the Area
Director. MIB Doctors take their role seriously and perform detailed
reviews.
In the IEEE, the board that approves a standard is separate from the
802.1 WG, and the reviews MIB Doctors will do based on this
transition plan are done within the 802.1 WG. So a MIB Doctor review
in the 802.1 WG is akin to an IETF WG chair asking for a MIB Doctor
to sanity-check the work, rather than a formal "MIB Doctor review".
Formally, comments from any origin carry the same weight in 802.1;
even voting status in the WG doesn't make your comments more weighty
than a non-voter. The 802.1 WG is not permitted to ignore any
comments, regardless of origin. Serious comments are always taken
seriously and never ignored.
The IEEE typically requires comments to be officially submitted in a
specific format, including proposed replacement text, which is then
reviewed at the meetings, and the decisions are documented in
disposition documents. These comments and dispositions are available
from the 802.1 private website. IETF personnel can be given the
password to the website by the 802.1 WG chair, so they can see
previous and current comments and dispositions.
We should not give the impression that the IEEE documents have
received the organized, coordinated, and formalized MIB Doctor review
as done in the IETF, if such review is done on an ad-hoc basis, and
not necessarily as part of the advancement process. We need to be
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
clear what is said, because the phrase "This document has passed MIB
Doctor review" has quite some weight in the IETF. We need to clarify
whether to describe the reviews done as having been done by an "IETF
MIB Doctor" or "IEEE 802 MIB Doctor", or a generic "MIB Doctor".
MIB Doctor reviews be copied to the document editor, and to the 802.1
chair
7. Communicating the Transition Plan
The transition plan was discussed in the Bridge WG at IETF61, and
included a presentation "Bridge MIB Transition to IEEE 802.ppt"
available in the proceedings.
The intent to transition was also posted on the Bridge WG mailing
list during notices of the Bridge WG closure, including the WG Action
announcement of February 15, 2006.
The transition was discussed with the 802.1 WG at the San Antonio,
San Francisco, and Garden Grove meetings. Presentations are
available in http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2004/
new-bridge-mib-transition-1104.ppt, http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/
public/docs2005/liaison-ietf-congdon-0705.pdf, and http://
www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2005/
liaison-ietf-congdon-0905.pdf.
8. Security Considerations
This document describes a plan to transition MIB module
responsibility from the IETF Bridge WG to the IEEE 802.1 WG. It does
not impact security.
9. IANA Considerations
Although this document discusses issues related to IANA assignment of
OIDs, no IANA actions are required by this document.
10. Intellectual Property Considerations
On November 29, 2005, a teleconference was held that included Jorge
Contreras, Scott Bradner, Bernard Aboba, Bert Wijnen, and David
Harrington, to discuss the Intellectual Property Issues. The
following is a summary of the results:
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
The IETF/ISOC gets a non-exclusive copyright from RFC authors so that
the IETF can publish RFCs, let 3rd parties translate RFCs into other
languages, let 3rd parties reproduce RFCs as-is and to create
derivative works within the IETF standard process. The author(s)
retain all their rights other than the right to withdraw the
permission for the IETF to do the above.
If anyone (including the IEEE) wants to reproduce any RFC as-is they
can do so without any specific permission - but it has to be "as-is"
and that includes the ISOC copyright - since the right for 3rd
parties to reproduce RFCs is part of the rights the IETF gets from
the author(s).
The author(s) of a RFC can tell another group (e.g., the IEEE) that
the other group can produce their own versions of the RFC if the
author(s) want to since the IETF does not get from the author(s) the
right to stop them from doing so.
If the author(s) give another group the permission to create
derivative works, this has nothing (legally) to do with the IETF
since the agreement is just between the author(s) and the other
group. Because of that, there is no reason for an ISOC copyright to
appear since the new document is not an IETF document. It would be
nice if the other group were to include a note to say that their
document is based on RFC XXXX, and the author(s) can insist on that
if they want but the IETF has no formal role in the granting of
permissions so the IETF cannot require the pointer to the RFC.
A new proposal being considered in the IPR working group might change
this process so that the IETF would get from the authors the right to
grant permission to other groups to produce derivative works. If
that were the case the IETF could then insist on the pointer to the
RFC and an ISOC copyright if the IETF wanted to do so. But even if
this proposal is accepted the authors could still grant permission on
their own without any IETF involvement.
There is a desire to ensure that the IETF has sufficient rights to do
derivatives of its own works. If the IETF decides, as part of a
liaison arrangement with another SDO, to hand over maintenance of a
specification to them, and the authors give the other SDO permission
to create derivative works, the IETF still retains the permission
granted by the authors to create derivative works within the IETF
standard process.
The IETF strongly recommends that any derivative works developed by
another standards body DO acknowledge that the work builds on prior
IETF work, with reference to the RFC(s) the work derives from. MIB
modules compliant to the IETF Best Current Practices "Guidelines for
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
MIB Documents" [RFC4181] contain REVISION clauses that document how/
where earlier versions were published.
Jorge has crafted a sample document that other SDOs may use as a
guideline for producing their own documents on "how to ask the
question" to solicit authors' permissions, and the template is
included in this document in Appendix B..
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC1525] Decker, E., McCloghrie, K., Langille, P., and A.
Rijsinghani, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Source
Routing Bridges", RFC 1525, September 1993.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC3978] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3978, March 2005.
[RFC4188] Norseth, K. and E. Bell, "Definitions of Managed Objects
for Bridges", RFC 4188, September 2005.
[RFC4318] D.Levi and D.Harrington, "Definitions of Managed Objects
for Bridges with Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol", RFC 4318,
December 2005.
[RFC4363] Levi, D. and D. Harrington, "Definitions of Managed
Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast
Filtering, and Virtual LAN Extensions", RFC 4363,
January 2006.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4181] Heard, C., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB
Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005.
[IEEE802.1AB]
"IEEE Std 802.1AB-2005, Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Station and Media Access
Control Connectivity Discovery", IEEE Std 802.1AB-
2005 IEEE Std, 2005.
[IEEE802.1AE]
"IEEE P802.1AE-2006, Draft Standard for Local and
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
metropolitan area networks - Media Access Control (MAC)
Security.", http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/
ae-drafts/d4/802-1ae-d4-0.pdf IEEE Draft, January 2006.
[PAR-IEEE802.1ah]
"http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/projects/
802-1ah.pdf", 802-1ah IEEE PAR, December 2004.
Appendix A. Contributors
Dan Romascanu
Avaya
Atidim Technology Park, Bldg. #3
Tel Aviv, 61131
Israel
+972 3-645-8414
dromasca@avaya.com
Tony Jeffree
Chair, 802.1 WG
11A Poplar Grove
Sale
Cheshire M33 3AX
UK
+44 161 973 4278
tony@jeffree.co.uk
Paul Congdon
Vice Chair, 802.1 WG
Hewlett Packard Company
HP ProCurve Networking
8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662
Roseville, CA 95747
US
+1 916 785 5753
paul.congdon@hp.com
Bert Wijnen
Lucent Technologies
Schagen 33
3461 GL Linschoten
NL
+31-348-407-775
bwijnen@lucent.com
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
+1 425 818 4011
bernarda@microsoft.com
Appendix B. Sample text for IEEE to request rights from authors
> "Dear Author,
The IEEE P802.1 working group wishes to incorporate portions of IETF
RFC XXXX (specifically YYY MIB modules) as part of IEEE Draft
Standard P802.1 and, to develop, modify and evolve such portions as
part of the IEEE standardization process.
Because the authors of contributions to the IETF standards retain
most intellectual property rights with respect to such contributions
under IETF policies in effect during the development of RFC XXXX and,
because you are an author of said document, the IEEE hereby requests
that you kindly agree to submit your contributions in RFC XXXX to the
IEEE for inclusion in IEEE P802.1. Please note that IETF is aware of
and supports this request.
Attached hereto, please find a copyright permission letter template
that we ask you to kindly sign and return, granting the afore
mentioned rights to the IEEE.
Sincerely yours, IEEE"
Appendix C. Change Log
[RFCEditor: please remove the change log before publication]
Changes from -00-
removed uncited references
fixed some citations
(re-)moved sections on updating OIDs, IANA OID Registration, and
mailing list usage, comment formats
updated MIB Doctor review section
updated clarifications section
updated URLs for presentations about the transition
updated Intellectual Property section based on teleconference with
IETF lawyer
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
updated IEEE references
removed empty history section
rewrote the "Updating IETF MIB Modules" section
added appendix with sample letter to authors
removed sections no longer needed after discussions with legal
counsel
Author's Address
David Harrington (editor)
Effective Software Consulting
Harding Rd
Portsmouth NH
USA
Phone: +1 603 436 8634
Email: dbharrington@comcast.net
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition February 2006
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Harrington Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 21]
