RE: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[e-mail]>]

There are quite a bundle of TCs that have this sort of
xxxOrZero behaviour where the user of the TC has to specify
some additional semantics. 

I am fine to be more specific, and to even add a few more
TCs as indicated below. I am writing up an I-D that will
contain them, so we can review.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Bell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: maandag 8 september 2003 10:04
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Andrew on this.  You should define the semantics 
> of the TC more
> explicitly, otherwise there seems no value in defining it at 
> all.  One concern I
> have here is that VlanIdOrZero, as defined below, could be 
> misused in place of
> the VlanIdOrAny.
> 
> I can see a possible need for a VlanIdOrNone TC defining the 
> value 0 as
> indicating that no VLAN is used; or for the 
> VlanIdOrPriorityOnly, as Andrew
> mentions below.  In either of these cases I would accept the 
> value 0 indicating
> 'No VLAN' or 'Priority Tagged Frame', respectively, as long 
> as it is explicitly
> defined as such in the TC.
> 
> Les...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Andrew Smith" <[e-mail]>@ietf.org on 07/09/2003 21:39:45
> 
> Sent by:  [e-mail]
> 
> 
> To:   "'Wijnen, Bert \, "'Bridge-Mib \
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny
> 
> 
> Bert,
> 
> It seems pointless to me to define a TC where any module that uses it
> MUST (or even MAY) add special semantics to one or more of the values.
> Why then bother defining the TC at all? We should either 
> define what the
> special "none" value is, including its semantics, in the TC definition
> or else not define any such TC. I also don't think that the name
> "...OrZero" is very helpful: the name should give a hint as to the
> semantics, not the syntax, even for a TC name.
> 
> N.B. if what IPCDN wants to do is identify the 
> "priority-tagged" frames
> permitted by 802.1D/802.1Q (that is frames that carry user_priority
> information but no relevant VLAN information) then that should be
> handled in one of 2 ways: (a) add 0 as a valid value for VlanId or
> VlanIdOrAny or (b) define separate VlanIdOrPriorityOnly and/or
> VlanIdOrAnyOrPriorityOnly TCs with ranges (0 | 1..4094) and/or (0 |
> 1..4094 | 4095) respectively [but I thought in the bridge-mib list
> discussions previously, we'd decided that there was no requirement for
> the priority-tagged semantics, no?].
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:14 AM
> To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny
> 
> 
> Not sure if they need it or not, but it would be to
> indicate "wildcard", not "none"
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: zondag 7 september 2003 10:55
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny
> >
> >
> > So, I guess that the IPCDN people do not need 4095.
> >
> > Otherwise, it looks OK to me.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: 07 September, 2003 10:29 AM
> > > To: Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
> > > Subject: FW: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny
> > >
> > >
> > > It seems that in IPCDN, some people would like
> > > to see yet another TC, namely:
> > >
> > >     VlanIdOrZero      ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
> > >         DISPLAY-HINT "d"
> > >         STATUS        current
> > >         DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN.
> > >
> > >                       The value zero is NOT a valid VLAN ID.
> > >
> > >                       When this textual convention is used as the
> > >                       syntax of an object, the object definition
> > >                       MUST specify in the DESCRIPTION clause what
> > >                       the value zero means.
> > >                      "
> > >         SYNTAX        Integer32 (0 | 1..4094)
> > >
> > > Does anyone see a problem with that?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bert
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: vrijdag 5 september 2003 0:48
> > > To: Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
> > > Subject: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny
> > >
> > >
> > > So... nobody has reacted to my request for
> > > writeup. So I am preparing to do an ID myself.
> > >
> > > This is what I think the discussion boiled down to.
> > >
> > >     VlanId            ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
> > >         DISPLAY-HINT "d"
> > >         STATUS        current
> > >         DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely 
> identifies a VLAN."
> > >         SYNTAX        Integer32 (1..4094)
> > >
> > >
> > >     VlanIdOrAny       ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
> > >         DISPLAY-HINT "d"
> > >         STATUS        current
> > >         DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN.
> > >                       The value of 4095 is used to indicate a
> > > wildcard,
> > >                       i.e. any value.
> > >                      "
> > >         SYNTAX        Integer32 (1..4094 | 4095)
> > >
> > > Any comments?
> > >
> > > Bert
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bridge-mib mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bridge-mib mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> > >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> 

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