Bridge WG D. Harrington, Ed. Internet-Draft Effective Software Consulting Expires: April 9, 2006 October 6, 2005 Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge WG to IEEE 802.1 WG draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-00.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 April 9, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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 April 9, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. New IEEE MIB Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. New MIB PARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. IEEE MIB Modules in ASCII format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. OID Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. Editing New IEEE MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Current Bridge WG Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Transferring Current Bridge WG Documents . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Updating IETF MIB modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. Clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4. IANA OID Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Mailing List Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Comment Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Bridge WG Mailing List Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. MIB Doctor Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2. Review Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3. Review Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4. Review Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Communicating the Transition Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Intellectual Property Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18 Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 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 Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions" [I-D.ietf-bridge- ext-v2], o "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol" [I-D.ietf-bridge-rstpmib], 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. Some points requiring further WG research and discussion are identified by [discuss] markers in the text. Points where further editorial work is required are identified by [todo] markers in the text. 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. Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 Developing 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 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. 1.2. History 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. The IEEE 802.1 Working Group is considering a new project for the Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP). This work is based on initial submissions, some of which were made in the IETF Bridge MIB Working Group. The proposal for this PAR is documented at http:// www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2005/new-congdon-MSTP-MIB-0505 .pdf. Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 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, which 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 format. Not publishing an ASCII version of the MIB module would negatively impact implementers and deployers of MIB modules. The 802.1 WG has started making the MIB module portion of their documents available as separate text files during project development, and allowing IETF personnel to access these documents for review purposes. For completed specifications, the ASCII version of the MIB module is 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 ASN.1 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. The 2001 version of the ASN.1 MIB module for 802.1X (the IEEE8021- PAE-MIB) has been published in ASCII on http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/MIBS.html, but should be updated with enough surrounding documentation to be clear, and to address deployment issues such as security considerations. [discuss] Did the 802.1 WG submit a document for 802.3ad, or is this a typo? The 802.1 WG has, with some projects (e.g., 802.1X, 802.3ad) submitted a MIB module document to be published as an informational RFC. Since the IEEE is publishing a corresponding document as a standard, and the RFC is only informational, it would probably be better to point interested parties to the appropriate 802.1 WG public website to prevent confusion over who is maintaining the document. As we transition existing Bridge WG documents to the 802.1 WG, and Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 the 802.1 WG document obsoletes the last IETF version, the Bridge WG or the 802.1 WG should create a corresponding RFC that simply points to the openly available IEEE copy, so we don't have a problem with synchronization between the copies being published. [discuss] I haven't been able to locate the Informational RFC for 802.1X MIB. 2.3. OID Registration 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 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 The Bridge WG documents have all been submitted for publication as Proposed Standards, and have been approved by the IESG. The documents should not change except editorially before being published as RFCs. It should be fine for the 802.1 WG to work against those documents while waiting for RFC publication, with the understanding that there is always a small chance an appeal could be filed, or other unusual events could cause the RFCs to not be published or to change technically. Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 3.1. Transferring Current Bridge WG Documents [discuss] We need to work out just how the transition of responsibility for existing MIB modules will happen. The IETF will not want to give up all rights to the documents, and have the 802.1 WG simply republish the existing documents under the IEEE name. The 802.1 WG will need to work through the management objects in the existing documents to determine whether they are consistent with their emerging specifications. During the final work on these documents in the Bridge WG, there were some issues that we decided not to solve and to allow it to be dealt with as part of the future work in the 802.1 WG. It would be useful to document these known issues so future generations of Bridge MIB developers in the IEEE will not need to dig in the Bridge WG archives to see what issues existed. [discuss] Maybe write a short Internet- Draft that concludes where we got in the IETF, and what is left for the IEEE 3.2. Updating IETF MIB modules [todo - wordsmith] The 802.1 WG sometimes modifies the wording of their standards under maintenance PARs. Modifying the definitions in a published MIB module could prove illegal according to the SMI rules. It may be best to expect that the BRIDGE-MIB and the P-BRIDGE-MIB and Q-BRIDGE-MIB and RSTP-MIB will remain in the IETF, and not be further modified by the IETF. The IEEE can write a separate document that contains updates to their technologies, such as 802.1Q, and include a separate MIB module that augments the IETF documents. They will not be able to modify the semantics of existing objects, per the SMI, so the IETF will not want to have the 802.1 WG publish the existing IETF MIB modules in their documents and inadvertently violate the rules of SMI, while following the rules of IEEE standards updating. [discuss] The 802.1 WG may need to deprecate and obsolete objects in the IETF documents. How does this work without republishing the document under an IEEE arc? Will the IETF publish an updated document with the deprecated/obsolete objects? 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. Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 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 change the semantics somewhat. 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 the 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. For an 802.1 standard that hasn't yet defined a MIB module to supersede the IETF MIB module, the need to fix a description in the MIB module in a manner that would not be SMI legal would precipitate the need to also define an IEEE MIB module. [discuss] would this replace the whole IETF MIB module, or just the necessary objects? The current practice in the 7802.1 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 to a new MIB object if the 802.1 management variable semantics changed, thus allowing the 802.1 WG to 'do it right' by SMI rules, obsoleting the old MIB object and creating a new one. 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 obsoleting MIB objects. [discuss] As mentioned above, this mapping would not show up in the ASN.1 MIB module; this is in the surrounding text. Should 802 document the mapping info in comments in the ASN.1 MIB module (beyond the REFERENCE clause)? [discuss] Will the IETF "turn over" the Bridge MIB module specifications to the 802.1 WG for maintenance, and thus Bridge MIB modules would be subject to the 802.1 rules? Will the Bridge MIB modules be "frozen in time", and updated only via the development of Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 independent MIB modules developed by the 802.1 WG? Or will IETF maintain ownership of the Bridge MIB modules, and perform maintenance on those modules as needed, if requested by the 802.1 WG? [PC] this is really a general question of maintenance of MIB modules that aren't currently under the 802 tree. I would hope we could do this in the least intrusive way for the end-user, but if we have to move the entire module under the 802 tree to get the necessary editing control, then this is what we will have to do. What does the IETF prefer? 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. In many cases, 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 be simpler for the 802.1 WG to define additional managed objects within the IANA-controlled registration tree. Such additions should probably require approval by the Area Directors of Operations and Management after MIB Doctor review. We should write a document similar to RFC3737 for an IANA controlled and administered Bridge OID registry. [discuss] Is this simpler than defining their own MIB modules using AUGMENTS? Using an IEEE MIB certainly would seem simpler for additional scalars or sparse columns to existing tables. We need a balance between disruption to existing implementations and efficiency in making changes. Keeping the existing trees in their place minimizes disruption to existing implementations. There will certainly be appropriate review by IETF, but I'm hoping the IEEE doesn't have to get bogged down by process every time we need an OID from IANA. [discuss] Is there going to need to be special casing by IANA when we request such an OID? What is the process? [discuss] If the 802.1 WG does their documents, and makes them publicly available and if we can check the MIB before it gets published, then maybe we can keep the OIDs as they currently are and let IEEE do extensions. But it is clear that in the case that OID branches get assigned by IANA, we (IETF) would want to have sign-off authority. Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 [discuss] Tony's expectation would be that in time the 802.1-related MIB modules will all migrate to arcs under the 802 registration tree, so he would expect them to be defined in a new related table under the IEEE branch. What makes the most sense in terms of supporting the MIB modules from the users point of view? Seems it would be the least intrusive to keep the existing trees in place, and supplement them with IEEE objects in IEEE arcs. 4. Mailing List Discussions After the Bridge WG is done with its documents, the WG will close, but the mailing list will remain open for possible BRIDGE-MIB related discussions, such as responding to implementer questions. One goal of the transition is to get the IEEE technology experts more involved in the related MIB module development. IETF-comfortable people may find the IEEE process uncomfortable, but they need to get accustomed to the IEEE process. Therefore, 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/docs2004 The MSTP-MIB proposals are being collected for 802.1 to prove adequate interest and a good-enough-to-start-from-point to decide whether the 802.1 WG should accept this as a WG effort. The discussion of the MSTP-MIB will be held on the 802.1 list to allow the 802.1 chair to keep it focused on the PAR and 5C justification (Cf: charter discussion) rather than on detailed discussions of the proposals. It is important to keep discussions "in scope", and discussing the PAR and 5Cs justification is inappropriate for an IETF list, and discussing the technology details for a project not in the WG charter is usually inappropriate for an IETF list. Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 10] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 4.1. Comment Formats The IEEE has a special format for comments regarding documents to ensure that all comments are reviewed and resolved during the meetings. Informal discussions can be held on the 802.1 mailing list, but once the 802.1 WG runs a ballot in 802.1, they would like all comments to be submitted in 802.1 comment format. 4.2. 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. 5. MIB Doctor Reviews 5.1. 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. Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 11] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 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, rather than for every revision. 5.2. Review Guidelines The IETF has developed a set of "Best Current Practice" MIB review guidelines, so editors and other WG members can check the document against the guidelines before requesting a MIB Doctor review. The 802.1 WG 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 Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 12] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 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 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. 5.3. 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: Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 13] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 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, 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 MIB Doctors, to better suit the 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. In addition, since the MIB Modules are usually just one long clause in 802.1 documents, the comment format is fairly straight forward. Just a problem description, a suggested resolution, and a page and line number. It would be good if comments could be submitted with each comment in the preferred format; this makes it easier on the editor to understand what is requested, easier to log the comment, and easier to review the comment in the meeting environment. Hopefully, the majority of MIB comments can be handled outside of the official balloting process. 5.4. 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 Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 14] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 review". Formally, comments from any origin carry the same weight in 802.1; even voting status in the WG doesn't make your comments less 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 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" [discuss] [discuss] Should MIB Doctor reviews be copied to the 802.1 chair? Should MIB Doctor reviews be explicitly requested by the 802.1 chair at certain key points in the process? 6. 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 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. Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 15] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 7. 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. 8. Intellectual Property Considerations There is a desire to ensure that the IETF has sufficient rights to do derivatives of its own works. One example is if we decide, as part of a liaison arrangement with another SDO, to hand over maintenance of a specification to them. There's at least one current instance of this in discussion; and it looks like we have to go and get specific permissions from the original authors. But it isn't a blanket permission - we aren't about to relinquish control of RFC 2460 so that anybody can publish an IPv6 spec with a few bytes reversed. Bernard Aboba will arrange to have the IETF counsel review this document and clarify the intellectual property language. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC1525] Decker, E., McCloghrie, K., Langille, P., and A. Rijsinghani, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges", RFC 1525, September 1993. [RFC4188] Norseth, K. and E. Bell, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges", RFC 4188, September 2005. [I-D.ietf-bridge-ext-v2] Harrington, D., "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions", draft-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-07 (work in progress), August 2005. [I-D.ietf-bridge-rstpmib] Bell, E., "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol", draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-09 (work in progress), August 2005. Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 16] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 9.2. Informative References [IEEE802.1AB] "[todo]", , August 2005. [IEEE802.1AE] "[todo]", , August 2005. [PAR-IEEE802.1ah] "http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/projects/ 802-1ah.pdf", [todo] . 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 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 Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 17] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 +31-348-407-775 bwijnen@lucent.com Bernard Aboba Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 US +1 425 818 4011 bernarda@microsoft.com 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 (2005). 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 Harrington Expires April 9, 2006 [Page 18] Internet-Draft 8021 MIB Transition October 2005 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. 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 April 9, 2006 [Page 19]