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

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

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 19:27
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: our IfTypeReferences project - ifType 5 inconsistencies
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 

Thanks Keith... fixed (not online yet though). 

> > (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. 
> 
Makes sense to me. WIll re-arragen. That is exactly one of the
reason why I wanted a (quick) check again before I have all entries
converted in the new format.

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

Can and will do that (unless I hear objections).

> >  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.
> 

So the one thing we can still wonder is:

   should we record errata against the RFCs in error. 
   Not that it matters that much probably, but it does record that
   we have seen these and that there is (consensus, at least in MIB
   doctors land) as to what the correct values are.

Bert
> Keith.
> 

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