Conflict between smi-numbers and RFC 2020

John Flick <johnf@hprnljf.rose.hp.com> Wed, 16 April 1997 22:02 UTC

Message-Id: <199704162150.OAA02255@hprnljf.rose.hp.com>
To: iana@isi.edu
Cc: vgmib@hprnd.rose.hp.com
Subject: Conflict between smi-numbers and RFC 2020
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:50:23 -0700
From: John Flick <johnf@hprnljf.rose.hp.com>

On the IANA web page, under:

    ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/smi-numbers

there is a listing for dot12MIB under the mib-2 branch showing it
as mib-2.45.

  Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1)

  Decimal   Name          Description                     References
  -------   ----          -----------                     ----------
  ...
       45   dot12MIB      IEEE 802.12                      [RFC2020]

However, RFC 2020 has this assignment under the transmission branch:

    dot12MIB MODULE-IDENTITY
        LAST-UPDATED "9602220452Z"  -- February 22, 1996
        ORGANIZATION "IETF 100VG-AnyLAN MIB Working Group"
        CONTACT-INFO
                "       John Flick

                Postal: Hewlett Packard Company
                        8000 Foothills Blvd. M/S 5556
                        Roseville, CA 95747-5556
                Tel:    +1 916 785 4018
                Fax:    +1 916 785 3583

                E-mail: johnf@hprnd.rose.hp.com"
        DESCRIPTION
                "This MIB module describes objects for
                managing IEEE 802.12 interfaces."
        ::= { transmission 45 }

Since it is a MIB for managing a particular interface type, it belongs
under the transmission branch, so I believe the assignment in RFC 2020
is the correct one.  Also, fielded implementations use the RFC 2020
assignment, not the one in smi-numbers.

As a side note, this assignment does not appear to follow the conventions
for assignments under the transmission branch.  Since the ifType for
dot12 interfaces is 55, this should probably have been { transmission 55 }.
However, changing this now would break fielded implementations.  So I
guess we just have to hope that we won't need a V.35 transmission MIB.

Please correct this listing in smi-numbers.

Thanks,
John Flick
vgmib working group editor
johnf@hprnd.rose.hp.com

Conflict between smi-numbers and RFC 2020 John Flick