[Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID
Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk> Thu, 08 May 2003 07:15 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14612 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2003 03:15:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h487PGv15499 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 May 2003 03:25:16 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h487P5815483; Thu, 8 May 2003 03:25:05 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h47BSN805281 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 07:28:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23916 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 07:18:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DMyr-0007KV-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 07:21:01 -0400
Received: from he301war.uk.vianw.net ([195.102.244.164]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DMyq-0007KR-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 07:21:01 -0400
Received: from [213.106.0.77] (helo=mesh1000.jeffree.co.uk) by he301war.uk.vianw.net with asmtp (Exim 3.36 #7) id 19DMze-0006G6-00; Wed, 07 May 2003 12:21:50 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030507122046.01bbc0f8@mail.expressoweb.co.uk>
X-Sender: tony+jeffree.co.uk@mail.expressoweb.co.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 12:22:00 +0100
To: stds-802-1@ieee.org
From: Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, Andrew Smith <ah_smith@acm.org>, "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" <bridge-mib@ietf.org>, mibs@ops.ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <80256D1F.0027083B.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID
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>
My apologies - I had forgotten about this. I will start a ballot forthwith. Regards, Tony At 08:05 07/05/2003 +0100, Les Bell wrote: >This was discussed at the March meeting. The decision was to conduct an email >'ballot' to determine if anyone had any objections to using 4095 as a wildcard >VLAN ID. I have not heard about the details of how, or when, this will take >place. > >Les... > > > > > >"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> on 06/05/2003 18:43:42 > >Sent by: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> > > >To: Les Bell/GB/3Com, Andrew Smith <ah_smith@acm.org> >cc: "'Wijnen, Bert , "'Bridge-Mib , mibs@ops.ietf.org >Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > >Les, Did you get any feedback after that March 9th meeting? >If not, Can you poll Mick Seaman? > >Thanks, >Bert > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > > Sent: vrijdag 28 februari 2003 17:27 > > To: Andrew Smith > > Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > > > > > > > I have asked for the opinion of the IEEE 802.1 Task Force > > Chair, Mick Seaman, on > > this proposal. He believes that the use of 4095 as a > > wildcard VLAN-ID would be > > okay, but he wants to discuss it formally at the IEEE 802 > > meeting in Dallas > > (week commencing March 9). I will be attending this meeting. > > > > Les... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Andrew Smith" <ah_smith@acm.org> on 27/02/2003 17:53:56 > > > > Sent by: "Andrew Smith" <ah_smith@acm.org> > > > > > > To: "'Wijnen, Bert \ > > cc: "'Bridge-Mib \, mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) > > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > > > > > Bert, > > > > The whole point of defining these TCs in a separate document > > is to serve > > "possible future (yet-undefined) needs" - why else would we bother to > > break them out in a separate document or module? > > > > The need to use VlanIdOrAny as an index in the future seems likely to > > me. It is especially likely if you believe that we're trying to set a > > precedent here for how to represent "some sort of packet field or > > don't-care". Personally, I think it's a bit clunky to > > overload the value > > like this - a separate flag object is more elegant, but, if we're > > comfortable with the overloading, I'd go with Randy and say (as I did > > before - maybe you missed my message?) that the syntax here should be > > unsigned, not signed (I understand the practical reasons for the > > non-negative-index restriction in SNMP but it is a limitation on the > > SMIv2 language). I don't think there's a need to consult with IEEE 802 > > on this - I think most of the people with relevant opinions > > on this are > > already on this thread - but that's the bridge-mib WG chair's > > call if he > > wants to ask himself for help. > > > > My opinions (I know you're looking for others though ...). > > > > Andrew > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org >[mailto:owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf >Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) >Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:36 AM >To: Randy Presuhn (E-mail) >Cc: Bridge-Mib (E-mail); mibs@ops.ietf.org >Subject: VLAn ID > > >Randy, you wrote: > >To: bridge-mib@ietf.org > >cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) > >Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID > > > >Hi - > > > >I think it would be better if the "any" value in the *OrAny TC were > >a non-negative value so that the type could be used to define an > >index. There may not be a need today, but thinking ahead to > >representing policy-like things wouldn't hurt. > > > >As far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one sofar who >has spoken up on the idea of not having a negative value >for the "any" for the VlanIdOrAny TC that I proposed. > >You do not claim an immediate need, but a possible future >(yet-undefined) need. > >S Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
- [Bridge-mib] VLAn ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] Re: VLAn ID Tom Petch
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Andrew Smith
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Les Bell
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Les Bell
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Tony Jeffree
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID C. M. Heard
- Re: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Les Bell
- RE: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)