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