RE: [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-06.txt

OK thanks. I will do a quick check early next week and then issue
IETF Last Call, assuming all is OK now. We have rev 08 posted
now, and I assume that is the one I should be looking at.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David B Harrington [mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 02:51
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; dbharrington@comcast.net; 'Dan Romascanu
> (E-mail)'; 'David Levi'
> Cc: 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review:
> draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-06.txt 
> 
> 
> 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