Hi Benoit/Joe, This effort to recharter was started in 2022 to address a nit in the charter. It was subsequently abandoned till the Secretariat brought it to my attention that the effort was still open. I submitted the charter to address the nit. It has now snowballed into a a whole scale effort to recharter the WG. Do the chairs/WG feel the need to recharter at this time? If not, I can continue with addressing the nit, and come back to the recharter effort at a later time.
Let me know. > On Aug 20, 2024, at 6:19 AM, Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > > Joe beat me by a few seconds. > I was about to write the exact same message. > The only change is a typo? > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-opsawg%2Fwithmilestones-03-02.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-opsawg%2Fwithmilestones-04-01.txt&difftype=--html > > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-opsawg%2Fwithmilestones-03-02.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-opsawg%2Fwithmilestones-04-01.txt&difftype=--html> > > Do we still have work on the C and D? > (C) The RFC 5066 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5066/> "Ethernet in the > First Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interfaces MIB" has > transitioned to the IEEE 802.3. However, as agreed with the IEEE, the IF-CAP- > STACK-MIB MIB module (from RFC5066 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5066/>) is generic by nature and should > continue > to be supported by the IETF. The WG will develop a document extracting the > IF-CAP-STACK-MIB from RFC5066 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5066/>, > emphasizing the generic nature of this module, > and obsolete RFC5066 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5066/>. > > (D) Documenting the list of RFCs transitioned to the IEEE 802.3.1-2011. > Considering RFC 4663 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4663/> > "Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge MIB WG to IEEE > 802.1 WG" as an reference, the following pieces of information would be the > foundation for the document: a table mapping the old IETF MIB names with the > corresponding new IEEE ones, clarifications/rules on the IETF-IEEE > interactions > (mailing lists, reviews), and clarifications on the intellectual property > considerations. > > > I don't see any related documents at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/documents/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/documents/> > > Regards, Benoit > > On 8/20/2024 1:59 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: >> Hey, Mahesh. I was kinda surprised to see this recharter. I know we >> discussed possibly doing this, but it seemed to just “come out” and I don’t >> think the text has been changed much (if any) from the original. It’s now >> being reviewed by IAB people. What’s the plan here? >> >> Joe Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
