Re: [802.1] RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt

["K.C. Norseth" <[e-mail]>]

Sorry for the late response, I just got back in town.

I did question the copyright when I placed it in the mib, I guess the
benefit of this problem is that we will get the powers that be to decide how
to handle this in future rfc's.

In summary, so far, I am seeing 2 alternatives:
1  Change the copyright to fit what the IEEE lawyers and IETF lawyers
decide.
2: Remove the mib and reference the document in the IEEE website.

There are corrections that needed to happen on the mib to make it compile
(please ignore my screw up on the complile.).  If we want to point to the
IEEE website, those changes need to be fixed.

Point #1 still needs to be addressed on how we address this.  Once this is
addressed, I think that #1 will be the best soution.

K.C.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Burns" <[e-mail]>
To: "Les Bell" <[e-mail]>; "C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:48 AM
Subject: RE: [802.1] RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt


> Hi folks,
>    At the July Plenary we have decided to put the 802.1aa mib back to its
> original 802.1X state (or as close to it as we can achieve).  Those values
> which are EAP or AAA related (counts of 'request ids' and 'response ids',
> etc) will have their text changed to indicate that these values will be
> filled by a functional entity other than the 802.1X PAE(the EAP entity for
> instance).
>    The reason for this issue is that .1aa clearly dilineates labor between
> the 802.1X PAE and EAP and AAA.  The guiding principle in .1aa is that it
is
> to transport EAP and switch between controlled/uncontrolled port, not
> interpret EAP, this means it should not look at the EAP header, only the
> EAPOL header.  With this principle, the PAE is unable to keep some MIB
> statistics and those need to be handled by the appropriate entities
> (although in actual implementations it is very likely that one piece of
> software is handling PAE and EAP on the authenticator, the standards are
> separate).
>    Our options were to:
>        1.  Alter the existing MIB to get the closest values to the current
> ones while only looking at the EAPOL header.
>        2.  Remove all EAP related values and let the EAP group define
their
> own MIB.
>        3.  Leave the MIB alone and let the text indicate that some values
> need to be filled by entities other than the PAE.
>    We chose #3 because we don't want to change the MIB for fear that the
AP
> and Bridge manufacturers may not update their MIBs to the new one in a
> timely fashion and then management software will need to deal with these
> different MIBs leading to potential interoperability issues.  The feeling
is
> that it took a long time for the industry to get the current MIB
implemented
> properly on their equipment, this MIB is extremely important to
> troubleshooting and we don't want to add yet another potential complexity
to
> wireless access.  So, the MIB remains the same, the definition for the
> values remain the same, but which functional entity is expected to fill
some
> of the values is made more clear.
>    The changes to bring the .1aa MIB back toward the original .1X MIB
should
> be done soon.
>    If you would like to review the changes please let me know and we can
> send them out to you as soon as we get them done.  These will be 'beta'
> changes as they will still need to go through the IEEE balloting process,
> but it would allow you to track it and give input.
> Thanks,
> Jim B.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Les Bell
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:08 AM
> To: C. M. Heard
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [802.1] RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D
> ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The changes to the MIB for IEEE 802.1aa include the corrections in
> draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt.
>
> There are also some other significant changes to be done for 802.1aa, due
to
> recent changes in the state machines and the managed objects that reflect
> this.
> This work is not complete yet
>
> Les....
>
>
>
>
>
> "C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>@ietf.org on 30/07/2003 20:30:07
>
> Sent by:  [e-mail]
>
>
> To:   [e-mail]
> cc:   [e-mail]
> Subject:  RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > An alternative option might be to publish the RFC without the MIB
> > module and just include a pointer to the inline MIB module at the
> > IEEE web site.
>
> Actually, I rather like that idea.  It certainly ensures that the
> stuff in the information RFC can't get out-of-sync with the IEEE's
> official version.  The only problem with that
>
> http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/MIBs/802-1x-2001-mib.txt
>
> has some problems that make it fail to compile (an illegal expression
> for the OID assigned as the MODULE-IDENTITY value, non-ascii quotes,
> and the absence of dot1xPaePortReauthenticate and
> dot1xAuthSessionUserName from conformance groups).  The version in
> the -01 draft corrected these problems.
>
> I see that the IEEE is in fact working on a maintenance release of
> 802.1X (see http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1aa.html, or look for
> the 802.1aa link under http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/1/), and
> one of the work items is a MIB module update.  However, this is in
> the private area and I don't know whether it includes the
> corrections mentioned above (nor how else it might differ from the
> current published version of the IEEE8021-PAE-MIB).
>
> Maybe someone from 802.1aa could comment?
>
> //cmh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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