RE: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Sat, 20 September 2003 01:36 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 VAA00219 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:36:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8K1VhA3020140 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:36:17 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h88E5vlj012734 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:05:57 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19wMeR-0003J5-S1; Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:05:55 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19wMaT-0002sW-RT for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:01:49 -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 KAA20764 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:01:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19wMaR-0000gs-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:01:47 -0400
Received: from auemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.223.161] helo=auemail1.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19wMaQ-0000Zm-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:01:46 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h88E18P16696 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:01:08 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <RYHC3XYF>; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:01:06 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550233150D@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "'Les Bell'" <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com>, bridge-mib@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:01:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
Content-Type: text/plain
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>

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:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com]
> Sent: maandag 8 september 2003 10:04
> To: bridge-mib@ietf.org
> 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" <ah_smith@acm.org>@ietf.org on 07/09/2003 21:39:45
> 
> Sent by:  bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
> 
> 
> 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: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org [mailto:bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org] 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:dromasca@avaya.com]
> > 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:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> > > 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:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> > > 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
> > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bridge-mib mailing list
> > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> > >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> Bridge-mib@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> Bridge-mib@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> Bridge-mib@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> 

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