Conflict between smi-numbers and RFC 2020
John Flick <johnf@hprnljf.rose.hp.com> Wed, 16 April 1997 22:02 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa23735; 16 Apr 97 18:02 EDT
Received: from palrel1.hp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23808; 16 Apr 97 18:02 EDT
Received: from hprnd.rose.hp.com (daemon@hprnd.rose.hp.com [15.29.43.139]) by palrel1.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA03839; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hprnljf.rose.hp.com by hprnd.rose.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.20/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA007587402; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:50:02 -0700
Received: from localhost (johnf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hprnljf.rose.hp.com with SMTP (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA02255; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199704162150.OAA02255@hprnljf.rose.hp.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: hprnljf.rose.hp.com: Host johnf@localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
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