[Bridge-mib] 802.1s mib

["Harrington, David" <[e-mail]>]

> 
> >On a related note, shouldn't the .1s MIB be part of an 
> updated Q-BRIDGE
> >MIB instead of a separate MIB?
> 
> Absolutely. S is now part of Q anyway.
> 

Will all implementors of Q also implement S, or is it an optional part
of Q? If it is an optional part of Q, then it would probably be best to
write a separate mib that supplements the Q mib. This approach is
generally easier for implementors and users.

Note that you can have multiple mib modules defined in the same
document.

Updating mibs:

SNMP has some strict rules about versioning of mibs, detailed in the
SMIv2 documents (RFCs 2578, 79, and 80). It is important to follow these
rules to ensure interoperability between agent implementations and
manager implementations, which are often implemented by different
vendors. 

A technology standard such as Q might be able to be modified, and a
device either supports the old way or the new way, but with SNMP it is
almost always a requirement that multi-vendor applications support both
ways, so the two ways cannot be in conflict (with very few
clearly-identified exceptions) or it can cause real interoperability
problems. 

Having a separate mib for optional functionality helps to ensure that
mibs like the Q mib don't change, so people can count on it for
interoperability.

dbh


_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib