RE: [Bridge-mib] Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2 Issues Resolution
"David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net> Tue, 11 January 2005 21:54 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 QAA07996; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:54:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CoUCM-0002C1-4y; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:09:11 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CoTmK-0005Tj-88; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:42:16 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CoTOu-0007Ry-Tf for bridge-mib@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:18:05 -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 QAA01636 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:18:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200501112118.QAA01636@ietf.org>
Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CoTcn-0008S4-Tt for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:32:26 -0500
Received: from djyxpy41 (h00104b8ce2a3.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.128.104.220]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2005011121173201400ggj6oe>; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:17:33 +0000
From: David B Harrington <dbharrington@comcast.net>
To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2 Issues Resolution
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:17:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
In-Reply-To: <20050106223936.GC24475@james>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
thread-index: AcT0QJ4N8v9CgZLIQpenKxXzGgis0wD4RjVw
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, bridge-mib@ietf.org
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: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi, 1) I agree with your analysis on the Priority objects. 2) I think the topologychange object has been changed in a way that could break existing (non-RSTP-knowledgeable) applications that are run against an RSTP-supporting agent, 3) the range has been constrained in the revision. This is probably not a problem, but it is a semantic change. I think these changes are technically illegal, but if the WG accepts them, I can live with that. If nobody objects, I will close this issue, and submit the document with these changes. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@iu-bremen.de] On > Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 5:40 PM > To: David B Harrington > Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2 > Issues Resolution > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:22:58PM -0500, David B Harrington wrote: > > > UNRESOLVED ISSUES: > > > > #543: smiv2-06: semantic changes; the following objects changed > > semantics of an existing object: dot1dPortPriority, > > dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange, and dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo. These > > objects were modified to support 802.1t semantics. Since 802.1t > > implementations have been fielded before this mib becomes available, > > the behavior of current agent implementations might be non-compliant > > with the updated definitions. Even an implementation that claims > > compliance to bridgeCompliance1493 will be impacted because the > > semantics of objects from RFC 1493 have been changed. > > dot1dStpPriority: > dot1dStpPortPriority: > > I think the change is really a clarification that only a subset of > the original value range is allowed for bridges that comply to IEEE > 802.1t or IEEE 802.1w so I do not see a real problem here for _agent_ > implementations. Bridges supporting IEEE 802.1t or IEEE 802.1w likely > reject values which are outside the set of legal values and I would > guess that this is exactly what is currently implemented and deployed. > Can someone confirm my guess? > > dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange: > > Can't really judge the difference since I do not know enough about > RSTP and tcWhile timers. Can someone explain what the impact of this > change might be? > > dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo: > > I am not sure what the issue here is. Did this semantically chance > at all? > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen > <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, > 28725 Bremen, Germany > _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
- [Bridge-mib] Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2 Is… David B Harrington
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv… David B Harrington
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv… John Flick
- Re: [Bridge-mib] Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv… John Flick
- RE: [Bridge-mib] Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)