RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] IfTypeReferences - ds3 and sip (SMDS) and coffe e

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[e-mail]>]

OK, so in my table I now have this comment:


      <!--label-->     <c>sip</c>
      <!--ifType-->    <c>31</c>
      <!--MIBoid-->    <c>mib2.36</c>
      <!--MIBmodule--> <c>SIP-MIB</c>
      <!--Reference--> <c><xref target='RFC1694'/> (DS)</c>
      <!--comment-->   <c>SMDS (sip here stands for SMDS Interface Protocol)


Hope that suffices.

Bert


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 12:58
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Keith McCloghrie
> Cc: [e-mail]; Cullen Jennings; Jon Peterson
> Subject: RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] IfTypeReferences - ds3 and sip (SMDS) and
> coffee
> 
> 
> Expanding SIP in this case seems to me extremely important. I 
> am almost
> tempted to suggest to add to the comment something like 'Warning: this
> is NOT the Session Initiation Protocol'. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 10:16 PM
> > To: Keith McCloghrie
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] IfTypeReferences - ds3 and sip (SMDS) 
> > and coffee
> > 
> > Interesting and strange stuff that I am finding.
> > 
> > Keith answered:
> > > > > 5. RFC 1694 is a later (than RFC 1304) reference for 
> 'sip(31)', 
> > > > > and RFC 2325 is needed as a reference if "coffee"
> > > > > is included in the row.
> > > > > I suggest it would be useful to expand the acronym to be: SIP 
> > > > > (SMDS Interface Protocol), but perhaps that negates the 
> > reference 
> > > > > to "coffee" ??
> > > > 
> > > > Hmmmm 2325 is an April 1st RFC. Should we list it at all?
> > > > Cause I do not think that the sip IfType applies at all, 
> > it is more 
> > > > of a joke and might confuse people who do not understand 
> > the APril 1st RFCs.
> > > > 
> > 
> > So I have for coffee:
> >       <!--label-->     <c>coffee</c>
> >       <!--ifType-->    <c>132</c>
> >       <!--MIBoid-->    <c>transmission 132</c>
> >       <!--MIBmodule--> <c>COFFEE-POT-MIB</c>
> >       <!--Reference--> <c><xref target='RFC2325'/></c>
> >       <!--comment-->   <c>April 1st RFC
> >                          <vspace blanklines='0' />
> >                           It does mention ifType sip(31) too.
> >                        </c>
> > 
> > So that one does list sip(31), but I think that was a joke 
> > (e.g. take a sip of coffee).
> > 
> > > > So I'd prefer to just list 1694.
> > >  
> > > So, why aren't/haven't they been confused by:
> > > 
> > >                    sip(31),            -- SMDS, coffee
> > > 
> > > in http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib ??  
> > Shouldn't we be 
> > > consistent ??
> > > 
> > 
> > The sip(31) SMDS documents (RFC1304 and RFC1694) do not 
> > contain the word coffee or Coffee. So I'd suggest to the iana 
> > to remove coffee from sip(31) comment. 
> > 
> > For sip(31) I now have:
> > 
> >       <!--label-->     <c>sip</c>
> >       <!--ifType-->    <c>31</c>
> >       <!--MIBoid-->    <c>mib2.36</c>
> >       <!--MIBmodule--> <c>SIP-MIB</c>
> >       <!--Reference--> <c><xref target='RFC1694'/> (DS)</c>
> >       <!--comment-->   <c>SMDS
> >                          <vspace blanklines='0' />
> >                           initial: RFC1304-MIB <xref 
> > target='RFC1304'/>
> >                          <vspace blanklines='0' />
> >                           obsoleted by: SIP-MIB <xref 
> > target='RFC1407'/> (PS)
> >                          <vspace blanklines='0' />
> >                           sip OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 
> > transmission 31 }
> >                        </c>
> > 
> > 
> > Do people think that the it is handy/useful to:
> > - have the reference to the most current RFC
> > - include the status (PS, DS...)
> > - list the obsoleted RFCs as well
> > - add the OID for "sip" (last line) ??
> > 
> > The reason I ask is that, now that I am going through all 
> > this in detail, it is easy to add. Problem might be: 
> > maintenance in the future.
> > 
> > I wondered about this when I also composed the data for ds3(30):
> > 
> >      <!--label-->     <c>ds3</c>
> >      <!--ifType-->    <c>30</c>
> >      <!--MIBoid-->    <c>transmission.30</c>
> >      <!--MIBmodule--> <c>DS3-MIB</c>
> >      <!--Reference--> <c><xref target='RFC3896'/> (PS)</c>
> >      <!--comment-->   <c>DS3/E3 MIB
> >                         <vspace blanklines='0' />
> >                          experimental: RFC1288-MIB <xref 
> > target='RFC1288'/>
> >                         <vspace blanklines='0' />
> >                          obsoleted by: RFC1407-MIB <xref 
> > target='RFC1407'/>
> >                         <vspace blanklines='0' />
> >                          obsoleted by: DS3-MIB <xref 
> > target='RFC2496'/>
> >                         <vspace blanklines='0' />
> >                          obsoleted by: DS3-MIB <xref 
> > target='RFC3896'/> (PS)
> >                         <vspace blanklines='0' />
> >                          ds3 MODULE-IDENTITY ::= { transmission 30 }
> >                       </c>
> > 
> > Oh well, comments always welcome.
> > 
> > The more I poke into this, the more I see that it is a big 
> > hodge podge of approaches. And I wonder how a NMS can make 
> > sense out of it.
> > 
> > Bert
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
> > 
> 

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