[MIB-DOCTORS] Re: our IfTypeReferences project - ifType 5 inconsistencies

[Keith McCloghrie <[e-mail]>]

> Keith and others. Thanks for all the input sofar.
> 
> We need consistency and make a decision. 
> We found the following (sofar):
> 
>   label(value()    where:
>   ---------------- --------------------------------
>   rfc877x25(5)     http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib 
>   rfc877-x25(5)    RFC1213
>   rfc887-x25(5)    RFC1392
>   rfc877x25(5)     RFC1573 (the initial IANAifType-MIB)
>   x25(5)           RFC1700
> 
> I understand that RFC 1700 has been obsoleted. 
> So maybe we need/should not worry about that.
> 
> It seems that the original label was rfc877-x25. I guess we (IETF IFMIB WG)
> changed it to comply with the CLR "no hyphens in a label" ??
 
Ok by me.

> In any event, I am inclined to put in our table:
>                
>     http://www.ops.ietf.org/IfTypeReferences02.html     
 
You have two typos (three if one counts "Pls") in the intro text:

   Thanks to Dave Thaler for providing the first cut. MIB doctors, Pls
   check for correctness. This should also align with the
   'ANAifType-MIB. If it does not, then the IANA registry us the
   authoritative source.

> (and comments about this new format is welcome too.
>  I am using cml2rfc with texttable element, which looks as follows:
>   <texttable anchor='table_IfTypeReferences'>
>     <ttcol align='left'>label</ttcol>
>     <ttcol align='center'>ifType</ttcol>
>     <ttcol align='left'>MIB oid</ttcol>
>     <ttcol align='center'>Reference</ttcol>
>     <ttcol align='center'>MIB module</ttcol>
>     <ttcol align='left'>(IANA) comments</ttcol>
> 
>       <!--label-->     <c>other</c>
>       <!--ifType-->    <c>1</c>
>       <!--MIBoid-->    <c>n.a.</c>
>       <!--Reference--> <c><xref target='RFC1213'/></c>
>       <!--MIBmodule--> <c>n.a.</c>
>       <!--comment-->   <c>none of the following</c>
 
It seems to be that "MIB oid" and "MIB module" are inter-dependent columns
and would be better as adjacent columns. 

Also, I think "none known" would be more informative than "?" in the
"MIB module" column for the xxx1822 rows.

>  I find that much easier to maintain than the format I received from
>  Dave Thaler... not complaining Dave. Your format seemed impossible
>  to maintain manually, but I am sure you have/had nice tools)
> 
> The MIB module is (as per RFC1382):
>   x25(transmission.5)  http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers 
>           under: Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2.transmission   
> 
> If I understand RFC1382 correctly, then that MIB module is also used
> for ddn-x25(4), as per sect 3.3 of RFC1382. 
> 
>    3.3.  Structure of MIB
> 
>    Instances of the objects defined below represent attributes of an
>    X.25 Packet Layer interface.  At present these interfaces are
>    identified by an ifType object in the Internet-standard MIB-II [5]
>    of:
> 
>                  ddn-x25(4), and
>                  rfc887-x25(5).
> 
>    For these interfaces, the value of the ifSpecific variable in the
>    MIB-II [5] has the OBJECT IDENTIFIER value:
> 
>                  x25    OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { transmission 5 }
> 
> Note that also for ddn-x25, we have changed it to ddnX25 in the IANAifType-MIB
> since RFC1573! So I am also using the ddnX25 in our table.

OK.

Keith.

_______________________________________________
MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors