[Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Tue, 06 May 2003 17:46 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 NAA01089 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:46:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h46HtCN12870 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:55:12 -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 h46Ht1812853; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:55:01 -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 h46HoZ812677 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:50:35 -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 NAA00972 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:41:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D6TX-0000yJ-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 13:43:35 -0400
Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161] helo=hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D6TW-0000xa-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 13:43:34 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h46HhsY21173 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:43:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2R199SLZ>; Tue, 6 May 2003 19:43:53 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155018B868A@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: Les Bell <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com>, Andrew Smith <ah_smith@acm.org>
Cc: "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" <bridge-mib@ietf.org>, mibs@ops.ietf.org
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 19:43:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
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>

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






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