RE: [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-06.txt
"David B Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Wed, 03 August 2005 00:51 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E07TV-0007gP-Pl; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:51:13 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E07TT-0007ek-S1 for bridge-mib@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:51:12 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28130 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 20:51:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200508030051.UAA28130@ietf.org>
Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E0804-0002MO-7T for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:24:52 -0400
Received: from djyxpy41 (c-24-128-104-6.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.104.6]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2005080300505501200pasi8e>; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 00:50:55 +0000
From: David B Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, dbharrington@comcast.net, "'Dan Romascanu (E-mail)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>, 'David Levi' <dlevi@nortel.com>
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-06.txt
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:50:48 -0400
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: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15507B5BAF8@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
Thread-Index: AcWVm3JM5CNak2LSTnyQDYth3VJUKwCE2Tkg
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" <bridge-mib@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietfdbh@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
Hi Bert, My latest comments to your latest comments inline. dbh > > > > > > - I wonder how we control that assignments under dot1dStp > > > will not cause > > > conflicts. This MIB module starts to asiign at { dot1dStp > > > 16 } which is the > > > next available number according to RFC1493. But how will we > > > keep track? > > > > Would you like them registered with IANA, including a note that all > > subsequent dot1dStp values are reserved? > > Well, that is what we did for RMON, i.e. registrations under: rmon > I think it migh tbe usefull to document them some place and > keep a registry. I will craft some text for an IANA document. > > As we transition to IEEE updates, will they be allowed to extend > > dot1dStp or do they need to use a different ieee8021 subtree > > registration? Would that be problematic? > > > > I think that we still need to decide on what to do with the OID trees > when we transfer to IEEE. If they do their documents, and make 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 that case we (IETF) > would want to have sign-off authority before such OID branches > get assigned by IANA. If we do that, then that maybe one more > reason to write a doc similar to RFC3737 for an IANA conrolled > and administered bridgemib OID registry. Not sure if that would be > acceptable to IEEE 802. I am working on a transition document with Dan and the chairs of 802.1, and we will address this issue in that document. > > > - I see not text that indicates the persistency behaviour of > > > the read-write > > > objects. > > .... > > So I understand that clarifying text was added that now in fact states > that they MUST be retained across re-init, except for: > > dot1dStpPortProtocolMigration > > Was that an oversight? No that was a deliberate decision of the 802.1 WG. Note that the compliance clauses also have some information about the persistency. David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
- [Bridge-mib] AD review: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge-rst… David B Harrington
- [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge-rst… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge… Randy Presuhn
- RE: [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge… David B Harrington
- RE: [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)