[Bridge-mib] 802.1s mib

"Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com> Sat, 03 April 2004 13:56 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21261 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:56:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9lcu-0003PA-PE for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:56:01 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i33Du0Dh013083 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:56:00 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9lcu-0003On-7Z; Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:56:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9lcC-00035b-77 for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:55:16 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21217 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:55:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9lcA-0000qf-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:55:14 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B9lal-0000fO-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:53:48 -0500
Received: from gtfw2.enterasys.com ([12.25.1.128] ident=firewall-user) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9laQ-0000ZJ-00 for Bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:53:26 -0500
Received: from NHROCAVG2.ets.enterasys.com (nhrocavg2.enterasys.com [134.141.79.124]) by gtfw2.enterasys.com (0.25.1/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i33DrPiR001868 for <Bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:53:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from NHROCCNC1.ets.enterasys.com ([134.141.79.124]) by 134.141.79.124 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:53:24 -0500
Received: from source ([134.141.77.90]) by host ([134.141.79.124]) with SMTP; Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:53:24 -0500
Received: from nhrocmbx1 ([134.141.79.104]) by NHROCCNC1.ets.enterasys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:53:24 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:53:22 -0500
Message-ID: <6D745637A7E0F94DA070743C55CDA9BA017E12D0@NHROCMBX1.ets.enterasys.com>
Thread-Topic: 802.1s mib
Thread-Index: AcQZOffLwznYTNQ0SrSqZvwcTWI8qgAR7W6w
From: "Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>
To: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>, "Congdon, Paul T \(ProCurve\)" <paul.congdon@hp.com>
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, <Bridge-mib@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2004 13:53:24.0236 (UTC) FILETIME=[0835A4C0:01C41983]
X-pstn-version: pmps:sps_win32_1_1_0c1 pase:2.5
X-pstn-levels: (C:79.5348 M:98.0742 P:95.9108 R:95.9108 S:17.9688 )
X-pstn-settings: 4 (0.2500:0.7500) p:13 m:13 C:14 r:13
X-pstn-addresses: from <dbh@enterasys.com> forward (org good)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [Bridge-mib] 802.1s mib
Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <bridge-mib.ietf.org>
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> 
> >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
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib