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

"K.C. Norseth" <> Mon, 04 August 2003 04:44 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA04631 for <>; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 00:44:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19jXCj-0007l1-7O for; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:44:19 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h744iHq1029815 for; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 00:44:17 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19jXCT-0007hH-DM; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:44:01 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19jXCP-0007ft-HF for; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:43:57 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA04595 for <>; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 00:43:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19jXCM-00061j-00 for; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:43:54 -0400
Received: from ([] by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19jXCL-00061g-00 for; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:43:54 -0400
Received: (cpmta 14637 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2003 21:43:53 -0700
Received: from (HELO NPCKCN) by ( with SMTP; 3 Aug 2003 21:43:53 -0700
X-Sent: 4 Aug 2003 04:43:53 GMT
Message-ID: <00a901c35a42$ff38a6b0$770f880a@NPCKCN>
From: "K.C. Norseth" <>
To: "Jim Burns" <>, "Les Bell" <>, "C. M. Heard" <>
Cc: <>, <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: [802.1] RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:43:48 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Id: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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
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.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Burns" <>
To: "Les Bell" <>om>; "C. M. Heard" <>
Cc: <>rg>; <>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:48 AM
Subject: RE: [802.1] RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D

> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> that it took a long time for the industry to get the current MIB
> properly on their equipment, this MIB is extremely important to
> troubleshooting and we don't want to add yet another potential complexity
> wireless access.  So, the MIB remains the same, the definition for the
> values remain the same, but which functional entity is expected to fill
> of the values is made more clear.
>    The changes to bring the .1aa MIB back toward the original .1X MIB
> 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:
> []On Behalf Of Les Bell
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:08 AM
> To: C. M. Heard
> Cc:;
> 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
> recent changes in the state machines and the managed objects that reflect
> this.
> This work is not complete yet
> Les....
> "C. M. Heard" <> on 30/07/2003 20:30:07
> Sent by:
> To:
> cc:
> 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
> 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, or look for
> the 802.1aa link under, 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
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list

Bridge-mib mailing list