RE: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB
"Alan K. Bartky, Manager of Technology" <alan@synclib.sync.com> Sat, 05 March 1994 01:36 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18093; 4 Mar 94 20:36 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18089; 4 Mar 94 20:36 EST
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01015; 4 Mar 94 20:36 EST
Received: from nsl.pa.dec.com by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com (5.65/13Jan94) id AA20034; Fri, 4 Mar 94 17:17:23 -0800
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA28131; Fri, 4 Mar 94 17:16:49 -0800
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA28127; Fri, 4 Mar 94 17:16:48 -0800
Received: from relay1.UU.NET by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com (5.65/13Jan94) id AA19801; Fri, 4 Mar 94 17:10:48 -0800
Received: from uucp5.uu.net by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwfvo12068; Fri, 4 Mar 94 20:09:22 -0500
Received: from synclib.UUCP by uucp5.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL ; Fri, 4 Mar 1994 20:09:28 -0500
Received: from alan.sync.com by synclib.sync.COM id aa11983; Fri, 4 Mar 94 17:07:48 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Alan K. Bartky, Manager of Technology" <alan@synclib.sync.com>
To: char-mib@pa.dec.com, snadlcmib@cisco.com
Subject: RE: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB
Reply-To: alan@synclib.sync.com
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 1994 17:06:56 -0800
Message-Id: <9403050106.382BB4@alan.sync.com>
X-Mailer: SelectMAIL 1.0
I believe that you will find that in actuallity only the NRZ/NRZI parameter and the port idle patter pertains directly to SDLC. The other parameters are used by either X.25/HDLC and other synchronous protocols. Certainly most of the parmeters are simple to implement as many implementations (HDLC ones) can just default the values. Here are some of the reasons we at Sync Research think the parameters are important. (These comments are based on Wayne's email message of December 22, 1993) (1) Sync Port Role. All of Sync Research's latest products have the ability (regardless of running Sync or Async) to be software configured as DCE or DTE. This field is of importance to us. It is also certainly usefull for even fixed devices for information purposes. Devices that can't be reconfigured should certainly know and could report their role as DCE or DTE. (2) Encoding Only SDLC (to my knowledge uses NRZI encoding), but this is an easy parameter for HDLC (only allow/report NRZ) and is required for SDLC. (3)RTS control and (4)delay. In out products we support RTS switched control for both bisync, univac and SDLC protocols. Proper configuration of these parameters is critical to Synchronous port operation. (Yes we do support SNMP for Bisync ports!) (5) Mode of Operation There are other protocols besides SDLC that are HDX protocols (again we support Bisync with SNMP support). Setting of this parameter is crucial for SDLC. HDLC, Frame Relay, etc. can set/report FDX. (6) Port Idle pattern. This is usefull and required for some SDLC devices. It seems that flags as an option was missed (i.e. options should be mark, space or flags). Again HDLC/Frame relay ports can easily default this parm (to flags) and not make it setable. (7) Minimum number of flags This is usefull for determining problems. Some devices do not support single flag separation (especially at high speeds). If an attached device requires more flags than 1, setting this object will allow it to operate (We have a lot of field experience on Frame Relay, X.25/HDLC and SDLC that have required us to insert more than one flag in order to get an interface to work properly). The description might need to be rewritten to beter define it's need. Devices that don't support adding or controlling the number of flags between frames could hard code it. (8) Runt and (9) Giant Frames Frames that are too small or large is a usefull concept for all synchronous protocols! Regards, Alan K. Bartky Manager of Technology Sync Research Inc. 7 Studebaker Irvine, CA. 92718-2013 (714) 588-2070 FAX: (714) 588-2080 email: alan@sync.com --- Begin Included Message (edited) --- From POP2-Server@synclib Fri Mar 4 16:31:56 1994 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 94 10:25:51 -0500 Message-Id: <9403031525.AA28766@xap.xyplex.com> From: Bob Stewart <xap.xyplex.com!rlstewart@uunet.UUCP> To: xyplex.com!pa.dec.com!char-mib@uunet.UUCP, xyplex.com!cisco.com!snadlcmib@uunet.UUCP Subject: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB Content-Length: 503 Status: A few people spoke in favor of adding some SDLC-related objects to the RS-232 MIB. They were reposted just recently by Wayne Clark, SNA SDLC MIB editor. They could be added as a separate compliance group for SDLC, but I didn't do so due to the general apathy. The following test of consensus is intended to insite response. Depending on the response, I may try the other way around. ******** Consensus Test ********* Are there strong objections to leaving out the proposed SDLC objects? Bob --- End Included Message ---
- Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB Bob Stewart
- Re: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB James Watt
- Re: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB Shannon Nix
- Re: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB A N Ananth
- Re: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB sberl
- Re: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB Norm Friedman
- Re: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB steven schwell
- RE: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB Alan K. Bartky, Manager of Technology