Protocol Action: Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges to Draft Standard

[IESG Secretary <[e-mail]>]

  The IESG has approved the Internet Draft "Definitions of Managed
  Objects for Bridges"  <draft-ietf-bridge-objects-02.txt> as a Draft
  Standard. This documents replaces part of RFC 1286 which has been
  split into two documents for clarity. This documents are the product
  of the Bridge MIB Working Group. The IESG contact person is Marshall
  Rose.

Technical Summary

  The requirements for the Bridge MIB were originally developed under
  the auspices of IEEE 802.1 and IEEE 802.5 and published in their
  documents regarding Transparent Bridging and Source Routing. The two
  subjects were dealt with together in the IETF Bridge MIB Working
  Group because IEEE chooses to view them as closely related
  activities.

  The original MIB was published as RFC 1286;
  draft-ietf-bridge-objects-02.txt represents that document with the
  following very nominal changes (the description being reproduced in
  its entirety from section 6 of the draft):

          6.  Changes from RFC 1286
 
          (1)  Updated all text to remove references to source route
               bridging where not applicable.  SR MIB will be a separate
               document.
 
          (2)  Removed dot1dSrPortTable.  Retained OID definition of
               dot1dSr.
  
          (3)  Updated all references of "draft P802.1d/D9" to "IEEE
               802.1D-1990".
 
          (4)  Updated bibliography.
 
          (5)  Added clarification to description of dot1dPortPathCost.
 
          (6)  Put recommended default in description of
               dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo.
 
          (7)  Put recommended default in description of
               dot1dStaticStatus.
 
          (8)  Put recommended default in description of
               dot1dTpAgingTime.  Specified range of (10..1000000).
 
          (9)  Updated all port number syntaxes, when used as index, to
               use the range (1..65535).
 
          (10) Updated definition of dot1dTpPortInFrames and
               dot1dTpPortOutFrames.
 
          (11) Added text to the traps indicating that they are
               optional.

          (12) Clarified definition of dot1dStpForwardDelay.
 
        The MIB consists of five groups, one of which (the Source
        Routing Group) has been separated to accommodate changes
        suggested by IEEE 802.5:

          5.1.1.  The dot1dBase Group

          This mandatory group contains the objects which are applicable
          to all types of bridges.

          5.1.2.  The dot1dStp Group

          This group contains the objects that denote the bridge's
          state with respect to the Spanning Tree Protocol.  If a node
          does not implemented the Spanning Tree Protocol, this group
          will not be implemented.

          5.1.3.  The dot1dSr Group

          This group contains the objects that describe the entity's
          state with respect to source route bridging.  If source
          routing is not supported this group will not be implemented.
          This group is applicable to source route only, and SRT
          bridges.  This group will be described in a separate document
          applicable only to source route bridging.

          5.1.4.  The dot1dTp Group

          This group contains objects that describe the entity's state
          with respect to transparent bridging.  If transparent bridging
          is not supported this group will not be implemented.  This
          group is applicable to transparent only and SRT bridges.

          5.1.5.  The dot1dStatic Group

          This group contains objects that describe the entity's state
          with respect to destination-address filtering.  If
          destination address filtering is not supported this group
          will not be implemented.  This group is applicable to any
          type of bridge which performs destination-address filtering.


Working Group Summary

  The consensus of the Working Group is that the Transparent Bridging
  portion of the Bridge MIB is quite solid. No proposals for update
  exist at this time, and the MIB has been deployed now for about 18
  months.

Protocol Quality

  The document has been reviewed by the NM Area Director, which
  resulted in some (minor) changes.

  The following implementations were reported when implementation
  experience was polled in March 1993. They are all full
  implementations of the Transparent sections.

        3COM
        Clearpoint
        Digital
        Fibronics
        Network Systems
        Proteon
        Racal Datacom
        Spider
        Xyplex