RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-09.txt
"David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net> Tue, 25 January 2005 18:17 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25540; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:17:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CtVWB-0002fT-MY; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:34:24 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CtVDo-0004SW-Gf; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:15:24 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CtVC7-00040W-TG for bridge-mib@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:13:41 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25308 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:13:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200501251813.NAA25308@ietf.org>
Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CtVSs-0002YI-L8 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:30:59 -0500
Received: from djyxpy41 (h00104b8ce2a3.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.128.104.220]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2005012518130701400hjd3fe>; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:13:07 +0000
From: David B Harrington <dbharrington@comcast.net>
To: "'C. M. Heard'" <heard@pobox.com>, "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" <bridge-mib@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-09.txt
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:13:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10501250857430.10086-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
Thread-Index: AcUDBvVLiCzjw51wT5qkypB76lm5jgAAZJ5A
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 156eddb66af16eef49a76ae923b15b92
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dbharrington@comcast.net
List-Id: bridge-mib.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:bridge-mib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: bridge-mib-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: bridge-mib-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d890c9ddd0b0a61e8c597ad30c1c2176
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mike, If you provide us with a list of necessary changes, we can discuss them and make them part of the AD review process. We are definitely looking to eliminate nice-to-have changes and proposed mib review requirements that are not currently included in the mib-review-guidelines-03. [soapbox] Working against constantly moving targets is one major reason why these documents have already taken three years. If it wasn't defined as a requirement when we started WGLC, I don't want to hear about it now. [end soapbox] David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net co-chair, IETF Bridge WG > -----Original Message----- > From: bridge-mib-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:bridge-mib-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:50 PM > To: Bridge-Mib (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-09.txt > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > > > 10.) Technical content -- the extent of my technical > review was > > > > > to go over the output from smidiff. I noticed a > couple of things: > > > ... > > > > > (b) also, the following changes violate our MIB > review guidelines: > > > > > > > > > > BRIDGE-MIB.mi2:194 [5] {named-number-changed} > warning: named number > > > > > `transparent-only' changed to `transparentOnly' at > type used in > > > > > `dot1dBaseType' > > > > > BRIDGE-MIB.mi2:194 [5] {named-number-changed} > warning: named number > > > > > `sourceroute-only' changed to `sourcerouteOnly' at > type used in in > > > > > `dot1dBaseType' > > > > > > > > > > See draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-03.txt, > section 4.9, first > > > > > bullet on p. 29. [ ... ] > ... > > > But as I said, I will not pick a fight about this. > > > > I certainly do not want to discuss the merrit of these rules here. I > > can life either way. But it would be good if the conclusion how we > > deal with this case could be recorded so that we do things > consistently > > the next time this pops up. > > In that case I would ask that the original labels be reinstated, in > compliance with the MIB review guidelines, because I think that the > MIB review guidelines are correct as written. > > > > > > (c) As a result of 9(d) above, I noticed that the compliance > > > > > statements do not spell out the prerequisites [ ... ] > ... > > So from this, I conclude that we probably want to add the following > > to the compliance statements: > > > > Note that compliance with this MIB module requires > > compliance with the ifCompliance3 MODULE-COMPLIANCE > > statement of the IF-MIB (RFC2863) and compliance with > > the snmpBasicComplianceRev2 MODULE-COMPLIANCE of the > > SNMPv2-MIB (RFC3418). > > > > Section 3.2.1 would be changed to the following: > > > > Implementations of the BRIDGE-MIB must comply with the > > snmpBasicComplianceRev2 MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement in > > the SNMPv2-MIB [RFC2863]. > > > > Section 3.2.2 first paragraph would be changed to the following: > > > > Implementations of the BRIDGE-MIB must comply with the > > ifCompliance3 MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement of the IF-MIB > > [RFC2863]. In the IF-MIB terminology, an interface is > > thought of as being attached to a `subnetwork'. (Note > > that this term is not to be confused with `subnet' which > > refers to an addressing partitioning scheme used in the > > Internet suite of protocols.) The term 'segment' is used > > in this memo to refer to such a subnetwork, whether it > > be an Ethernet segment, a 'ring', a WAN link, or even an > > X.25 virtual circuit. > > Making compliance with snmpBasicComplianceRev2 raises the bar quite > a bit higher than necessary. That compliance statement imposes a > requirement for SNMP instrumentation. Maybe that's a good thing to > have, but it's not necessary to support the BRIDGE-MIB. If suffices > to support the systemGroup. But, if it is agreed to go that route, > I will have no quarrel. > > > We may want to add after the first sentence (although this should > > be clear from reading the IF-MIB): > > > > This includes mandatory support of the ifFixedLengthGroup, > > the ifPacketGroup, and the ifCounterDiscontinuityGroup of > > the IF-MIB [RFC2863], which are conditionally mandatory > > in the ifCompliance3 statement. > > Leave that out. Redundant text runs the risk of being > contradictory, and this is such a case. ifFixedLengthGroup and > ifPacketGroup are mutually exclusive in ifCompliance3. Let RFC 2863 > speak for itself. > > The one other fix that I would suggest along with the above would be > the following new text for Sec. 3.2: > > 3.2 Relationship to Other MIB Modules > > As described above, some IEEE 802.1D management objects > have not been > included in this MIB module because they overlap with objects in > other MIB modules applicable to a bridge implementing this MIB. In > particular, it is assumed that a bridge implementing the BRIDGE-MIB > module will also implement the SNMPv2-MIB [RFC3418] and the IF-MIB > [RFC2863]. > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, David B Harrington wrote: > > Let me jump in as chair. > > > > It is important to realize that we have already been > through WGLC and > > submitted the document for advancement, and cannot make any > changes to > > the document without "unsubmitting" it. We cannot publish a new > > revision for minor changes. > > > > I asked for an independent MIB Doctor review to ensure that there is > > nothing **broken** in this document; given that it has been reviewed > > by three of four MIB Doctors already, I didn't think it > very likely we > > missed anything, but an extra pair of eyes doesn't hurt, > and reassures > > the IESG it has been independently reviewed. > > In that case I will withdraw all of my merely "nice-to-have" comments, > and I can resubmit the remaining stuff as IETF Last Call > comments. That > would include the editorial stuff plus the two issues discussed above. > > Mike > > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge-mib mailing list > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
- [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2… C. M. Heard
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… C. M. Heard
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… C. M. Heard
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Les Bell
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… David B Harrington
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… C. M. Heard
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… David B Harrington
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… David B Harrington
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… C. M. Heard
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… David B Harrington
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… David B Harrington
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… C. M. Heard
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… David B Harrington
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… David B Harrington
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… C. M. Heard
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… David B Harrington
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… C. M. Heard
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… David B Harrington
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-s… Tom Petch