[Bridge-mib] RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt
"David Levi" <dlevi@nortelnetworks.com> Thu, 22 April 2004 17:16 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11302 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:16:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGhjt-00082H-48 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:11:53 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3MHBrNZ030889 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:11:53 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGhZO-0004UG-OE; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:01:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGhQ6-0001Oj-Qk for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:51:27 -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 MAA09911 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:51:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGhQ1-0006Oc-Ta for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:51:22 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGhPA-00067J-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:50:31 -0400
Received: from zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com ([47.103.122.112]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGhOX-0005nu-00 for Bridge-mib@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:49:49 -0400
Received: from zsc3c028.us.nortel.com (zsc3c028.us.nortel.com [47.81.138.28]) by zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i3MGn2j16661; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:49:02 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by zsc3c028.us.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <HQ4C6NK0>; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:49:02 -0700
Message-ID: <0A11633F61BD9F40B43ABCC694004F93043BC78D@zsc3c026.us.nortel.com>
From: David Levi <dlevi@nortelnetworks.com>
To: "'Harrington, David'" <dbh@enterasys.com>, "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Cc: "'Bridge-mib@ietf.org'" <Bridge-mib@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:49:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C42889.B70BD2D4"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt
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>
Hi David, Here's the replacement text I promised. On page 6, change this: In a device supporting the 32-bit default Path Costs defined in IEEE 802.1t Table 8-5, the interpretation of objects in this group is unchanged except for the following: dot1dStpPortPathCost Definition remains unchanged, but the permissible values are extended to 1-200,000,000. to this: In a device supporting the 32-bit default Path Costs defined in IEEE 802.1t Table 8-5, the object dot1dStpPortPathCost32 [XXX] should be used rather than the older object dot1dStpPortPathCost. The newer object supports the expanded range of 1-200,000,000. Note that there would need to be a reference to the latest BRIDGE-MIB document (where I put [XXX]). But that document is not yet published as an RFC. I guess this change depends on advancement of that document. I had suggested changing the SYNTAX of dot1dStpPortProtocolMigration from TruthValue to just an enumerated INTEGER. I looked more closely at the 802.1w document, and this parameter is described there as a boolean value. The description there is kind of odd, as it basically says you can set the value to TRUE, but that when you do, it will be immediately set back to FALSE. Anyway, I guess this is why TruthValue was used in the MIB. I could go either way on this, but if other people think it makes sense to change the SYNTAX, here's what I'd suggest: dot1dStpPortProtocolMigration OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { transmitRstpBpdus(1) } MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "When operating in RSTP (version 2) mode, setting this object forces this port to transmit RSTP BPDUs. Any other operation on this object has no effect and it always returns transmitRstpBpdus(2) when read." REFERENCE "IEEE 802.1w clause 14.8.2.4, 17.18.10, 17.26" ::= { dot1dStpExtPortEntry 1 } For the DESCRIPTION of dot1dStpPortAdminEdgePort, I'd suggest: DESCRIPTION "The administrative value of the Edge Port parameter. A value of TRUE(1) indicates that this port should be assumed as an edge-port and a value of FALSE(2) indicates that this port should be assumed as a non-edge-port. Setting this object will also cause the corresponding instance of dot1dStpPortOperEdgePort to change to the same value. Note that even when this object's value is true, the value of the corresponding instance of dot1dStpPortOperEdgePort can be false if a BPDU has been received." and for dot1dStpPortOperEdgePort: DESCRIPTION "The operational value of the Edge Port parameter. The object is initialized to the value of the corresponding instance of dot1dStpPortAdminEdgePort. When the corresponding instance of dot1dStpPortAdminEdgePort is set, this object will be changed as well. This object will also be changed to FALSE on reception of a BPDU." -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Levi, David [SC100:323:EXCH] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:23 AM To: 'Harrington, David'; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Cc: Dan Romascanu (E-mail); Les Bell Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt Hi David, I just forwarded my comments to the mailing list. I could do some editing if necessary (there are only minor edits required). I'll write up some replacement text to address my comments sometime today or tomorrow. -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Harrington, David [mailto:dbh@enterasys.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 8:32 AM To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Levi, David [SC100:323:EXCH] Cc: Dan Romascanu (E-mail); Les Bell Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt Oooh. I didn't look at the addresses and assumed it had been posted. Yes, It should certainly be posted to the bridge mailing list to help stimulate discussion, and let the authors know what you've found. Dave, can you post it directly? Thanks much for doing the review. The editors of that document may not be able to make the changes; I'd rather keep you as a reviewer, but if it comes to it, could you help by editing the document? You could also make it much easier for the editors if you can propose the replacement/additional text to resolve your concerns. Thanks, dbh From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:51 AM To: David Levi; Harrington, David; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt Would it not be good to post this to bridegmib wg mailing list? I think it would Thanks, Bert -----Original Message----- From: David Levi [mailto:dlevi@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: maandag 19 april 2004 18:42 To: 'Harrington, David'; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt Hi David, Here are some comments on the draft. - The references to SNMPv3 RFCs throughout the document are all out-of-date, they need to be updated to 341*. - On page 6, right at the end of section 3.4.1.2, the text about dot1dStpPortPathCost needs to be changed, it should refer to the new object dot1dStpPortPathCost32, rather than describing a change to the older object. - On page 7, the stpCompatible(0) enumeration in dot1dStpVersion ought to be stpCompatible(1) (RFC 2578, section 7.1.1 recommends that integer enumerations start at 1). - On page 8, I'd like to see better working in the DESCRIPTION of dot1dStpPathCostDefault. Something like this: "The version of the Spanning Tree default Path Costs that are to be used by this Bridge. A value of 8021d1998(1) means the bridge is using the 16-bit default Path Costs from IEEE Std. 802.1D-1998. A value of stp8021t2001(2) means the bridge is using the 32-bit default Path Costs from IEEE Std. 802.1t." - On page 9, I think dot1dStpPortProtocolMigration should not be of type TruthValue, the semantics of the object do not match the semantics of TruthValue. A better choice would be to use a plain enumerated INTEGER type. Also, only one enumerated value is really required. - On page 9 and 10, I think there should be more text in the DESCRIPTIONs of dot1dStpPortAdminEdgePort and dot1dStpPortOperEdgePort to describe the behaviour of these objects, and their relationship. For example, what happens to the value of dot1dStpPortOperEdgePort when the value of dot1dStpPortAdminEdgePort is set to false(2)? The DESCRIPTIONs don't spell this out, and they should. - On page 11-12, the rstpDefaultPathCostGroup OBJECT-GROUP does not appear in the rstpCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement. While I don't think it is required to appear in a MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement, I wasn't sure where this was just an over-sight, or whether it was intentionally left out. That's it, hope this is helpful. -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Harrington, David [mailto:dbh@enterasys.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 8:31 AM To: Levi, David [SC100:323:EXCH]; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt I would appreciate the help. Thanks, dbh From: David Levi [mailto:dlevi@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 6:50 PM To: Harrington, David; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt David, If it can wait until late next week, then yes. -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Harrington, David [mailto:dbh@enterasys.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 3:16 PM To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Levi, David [SC100:323:EXCH] Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt Hi, We are about to go to last call with the rstp mib, IF my initial review shows it is ready for such. I could certainly use help since I have to review all the bridgemib documents before going to last call. Dave, are you interested in doing a MIB Doctor review or a lighterweight MIB Doctor review (Is that a MIB Nurse review) of the rstpmib for me? dbh From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:34 AM To: David Levi; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)' Cc: Harrington, David Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt Dave, are you not getting it? I am trying to pull you into some active IETF work again ;-) It is fun man! Would a promise for a good beer convince you? Thanks, Bert -----Original Message----- From: David Levi [mailto:dlevi@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: donderdag 8 april 2004 16:20 To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)' Cc: David Harrington (E-mail) Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt Bert, Actually, I think it is safe to claim that we are implementing the std track version, because the only real difference is that we have it rooted in our enterprise branch instead of under dot1dBridge. -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:41 AM To: Levi, David [SC100:323:EXCH] Cc: David Harrington (E-mail) Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-04.txt At the moment, we are implementing a clone of the RSTP-MIB under our enterprises branch, but we'd prefer to implement a standarized version. So PLEASE help Dave Harrington finalize, so you can implement an IETF stds track one!? Bert -Dave