[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 RFC 4663

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

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).


   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

   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

   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

   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

   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

   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

   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

   dot1qVlanVersionNumber read bridge vlan config
   dot1qMaxVlanId          read bridge vlan config
   dot1qMaxSupportedVlans read bridge vlan config
   dot1qGvrpStatus         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

   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

   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
   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

   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

   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.

         [E=Editorial, ER=Editorial Required]
         [T=Technical, TR=Technical Required]

   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

   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

   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

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://

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.

              "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.

              "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.

              802-1ah.pdf", 802-1ah IEEE PAR, December 2004.

Appendix A.  Contributors

      Dan Romascanu
      Atidim Technology Park, Bldg. #3
      Tel Aviv, 61131
      +972 3-645-8414

      Tony Jeffree
      Chair, 802.1 WG
      11A Poplar Grove
      Cheshire M33 3AX
      +44 161 973 4278

      Paul Congdon
      Vice Chair, 802.1 WG
      Hewlett Packard Company
      HP ProCurve Networking
      8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662
      Roseville, CA 95747
      +1 916 785 5753

      Bert Wijnen
      Lucent Technologies
      Schagen 33
      3461 GL Linschoten

Harrington              Expires September 1, 2006              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft             8021 MIB Transition             February 2006

      Bernard Aboba
      Microsoft Corporation
      One Microsoft Way
      Redmond, WA 98052
      +1 425 818 4011

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

Author's Address

   David Harrington (editor)
   Effective Software Consulting
   Harding Rd
   Portsmouth NH

   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

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

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Harrington              Expires September 1, 2006              [Page 21]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/