7.3 MIB

Anil Rijsinghani <anil@levers.enet.dec.com> Wed, 03 March 1993 21:59 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19002; 3 Mar 93 16:59 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18998; 3 Mar 93 16:59 EST
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26585; 3 Mar 93 16:59 EST
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA06089; Wed, 3 Mar 93 16:15:21 -0500
X-Resent-To: fddi-mib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 3 Mar 1993 16:15:20 EST
Errors-To: owner-fddi-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA06070; Wed, 3 Mar 93 16:15:13 -0500
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA04579; Wed, 3 Mar 93 13:15:07 -0800
Received: by us1rmc.bb.dec.com; id AA16485; Wed, 3 Mar 93 16:12:32 -0500
Message-Id: <9303032112.AA16485@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
Received: from levers.enet; by us1rmc.enet; Wed, 3 Mar 93 16:12:45 EST
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 16:12:45 EST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Anil Rijsinghani <anil@levers.enet.dec.com>
To: fddi-mib@cs.utk.edu
Apparently-To: fddi-mib@cs.utk.edu
Subject: 7.3 MIB

    Hi everyone,

    A few small items remain to be taken care of on this MIB before we
    can sign off on it.

    First, because of the considerable rearrangement caused by addition
    and deletion of objects in the shift from 6.2 -> 7.3, some
    compaction is warranted.  The new MIB will be located on a
    different branch than the existing RFC-1285 MIB, since OID's
    cannot be shuffled for backward compatibility reasons.  In
    discussing this with Jeff, he also pointed out that the existing
    object descriptors need to be changed since they go with
    existing OID's.

    In the process, there is an opportunity to shorten the descriptors
    by changing the string "snmpFddi" to something briefer which should
    help!  It may be useful to tie it to the version number, just in
    case SMT changes yet again and we have to go through another
    wave of updates.  Something like "smt73" would work.  Any other
    suggestions are welcome.

    The only other item remaining to be discussed is traps.  I
    believe that would probably be be the primary dicussion topic at Ohio.
    Although it was me (I think) that had first (re-)initiated this
    discussion a while back, it seems worthwhile at this point to
    submit a trap-less MIB for publication as the 7.3 RFC, that some
    progress can be made.  They could be added in the next incremental
    standardization step if necessary.  On the other hand, if popular opinion
    is that traps are needed immediately, we must spend additional
    time on their definition before submitting this MIB.  Other WG members'
    input on this would be appreciated.

    In the meantime, I will be assisting Jeff in the update process
    for changes so far as well as any other edits necessary to ship this
    to the IESG, as he currently has his hands full with the ongoing
    nominations process for that committee.

    Regards,
    Anil