Re: [Bridge-mib] IETF-54 meeting

Michael MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com> Wed, 07 August 2002 17:07 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28998 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:07:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA24468 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:08:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24458; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:08:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24424 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:08:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from agile.yagosys.com (host60.riverstonenet.com [64.95.122.60] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA28939 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:07:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 1963 invoked by uid 10041); 7 Aug 2002 17:07:47 -0000
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:07:47 -0700
From: Michael MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com>
To: Les Bell <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com>
Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] IETF-54 meeting
Message-ID: <20020807170747.GA1897@riverstonenet.com>
References: <80256C0E.002BD3FA.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <80256C0E.002BD3FA.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux 2.4.18
Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <bridge-mib.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:47:20AM +0100, Les Bell wrote:
>Mike, thanks for your comments on draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-03.txt.  I
>shall try to respond to your first issue on dot1dStpPortEnable.
[snip]
>My own interpretation is as follows:
>
>  If dot1dStpPortEnable is set to enabled(1) the port should participate
>  normally in Spanning Tree and in forwarding traffic.
>
>  If dot1dStpPortEnable is set to disabled(2) the port should not
>  participate in Spanning Tree, received BPDUs should be discarded, and
>  the port should not participate in Layer 2 forwarding of traffic,
>  although it may participate in Layer 3 forwarding.
>
>I would like to hear the views of the group, to see if they agree or disagree
>with this interpretation.  I would particularly like to hear the views of the
>original authors of RFC1493.

I agree and believe this 'clarifying' text resolve 
the existing incompatiblities between vendor implementations.

Thank you,
Mike MacFaden


_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib