Les Bell | 8 Jul 16:55 2002
Picon

IETF-54 meeting


I have booked a slot in the schedule for the Bridge-MIB WG in Yokohama.
However, as the document editors/authors cannot attend the meeting, and I
believe the current drafts are ready to go for a last call, I wanted to get the
opinion of the Working Group as to whether there is any need to go ahead with
this meeting.  I am also unable to attend the meeting, but Dan Romascanu has
volunteered to chair the meeting in my absence, if required.

No-one has raised any issues for the agenda so far.  If you feel that there is a
need to hold a meeting in Yokohama, then please reply to the mailing list by end
of Wednesday, 10th July, and please state what it is we need to discuss.

The current drafts are:

Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-03.txt

Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-03.txt

Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with TrafficClasses, Multicast
Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-00.txt

Definitions for Port Access Control (IEEE 802.1X) MIB
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-00.txt

Les...
Michael MacFaden | 9 Jul 02:44 2002

Re: IETF-54 meeting

On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 03:55:51PM +0100, Les Bell wrote:
>I believe the current drafts are ready to go for a last call, I wanted to get the
>opinion of the Working Group as to whether there is any need to go ahead with
>this meeting.  

I won't be attending Yokohama but wanted to comment on two issues 
I have previously raised in previous versions of the BRIDGE-MIB draft
which remain in draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-03.txt.

First, the REFERENCE clause changes do help improve the chances of
interoperable implementations. Yet I still think these two ancient 
objects have interoperability issues.

1) dot1dStpPortEnable
   I believe there needs to be some text added to the front matter
   to describe the relationship between ifAdminStatus and dot1dStpPortEnable. 
   What is the relationship between ifAdminStatus and dot1dStpPortEnable? 
     a) none, 
     b) represent same value (as embodied in cisco catalyst implementation)
     c) represent different layers (port level, vs protocol level) (kzm expectation?)

   background info: http://www.macfaden.com/ietf/bridge-test-results.txt

2) dot1dStpPortPriority
   The wording could be more specific as to what the issue is. 
   It currently reads:

    "The value of the priority field which is contained in
     the first (in network byte order) octet of the (2 octet long) Port ID.  
     The other octet of the Port ID is given by the value of
(Continue reading)

Les Bell | 12 Jul 12:17 2002
Picon

Bridge-MIB WG meeting is cancelled


Judging from the limited response on the mailing list, it seems that there are
no issues that warrant discussion in Yokohama, so the Bridge-MIB WG meeting at
IETF-54 has been cancelled.

The only issues raised on the mailing list, re the current drafts, have been
from Mike McFaden.  Please respond to Mike's email with your views on those
issues.

Les...
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 14 Jul 01:59 2002
Picon

RE: Bridge-MIB WG meeting is cancelled

Sorry for late response, but it is OK to cancel.
Les has been discussing it with us.

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dinara Suleymanova [mailto:dinaras <at> ietf.org]
> Sent: vrijdag 12 juli 2002 16:56
> To: Les Bell; Bridge-mib <at> ietf.org
> Cc: agenda <at> ietf.org; bwijnen <at> lucent.com; randy <at> psg.com
> Subject: Re: Bridge-MIB WG meeting is cancelled
> 
> 
> Area Directors,
> 
> Your word, please ...
> 
> At 11:17 AM 7/12/02 +0100, Les Bell wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >Judging from the limited response on the mailing list, it 
> seems that there are
> >no issues that warrant discussion in Yokohama, so the 
> Bridge-MIB WG meeting at
> >IETF-54 has been cancelled.
> >
> >The only issues raised on the mailing list, re the current 
> drafts, have been
> >from Mike McFaden.  Please respond to Mike's email with your 
(Continue reading)

Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 24 Jul 14:10 2002

dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost

I have a question concerning the definition of dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost. in draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-03.txt. The text in 3.4.1.2 mentions that the definition remains unchanged, but the permissible values are extended to 1-200,000,000. I am not sure how this change is supposed to be implemented, but the range of the object in the MIB is still (0..65535). Can one of the authors clarify?

Thanks,

Dan




Les Bell | 24 Jul 14:54 2002
Picon

Re: dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost


The range is intended to be (0..200000000), as you noticed.  We need to fix
this.

Les...

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca <at> avaya.com> <at> ietf.org on 24/07/2002 13:10:23

Sent by:  bridge-mib-admin <at> ietf.org

To:   <bridge-mib <at> ietf.org>
cc:   "Haleva, Amir
Subject:  [Bridge-mib] dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost

I have a question concerning the definition of dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost. in
draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-03.txt. The text in 3.4.1.2 mentions that the
definition remains unchanged, but the permissible values are extended to
1-200,000,000. I am not sure how this change is supposed to be implemented, but
the range of the object in the MIB is still (0..65535). Can one of the authors
clarify?
Thanks,
Dan

(See attached file: C.htm)

I have a question concerning the definition of dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost. in draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-03.txt. The text in 3.4.1.2 mentions that the definition remains unchanged, but the permissible values are extended to 1-200,000,000. I am not sure how this change is supposed to be implemented, but the range of the object in the MIB is still (0..65535). Can one of the authors clarify?

Thanks,

Dan




Les Bell | 31 Jul 11:05 2002
Picon

Re: dot1qConstrainStatus


Please read the definition of RowStatus in RFC1903.

Les...

Lakshmi.Thampi <at> lntinfotech.com on 31/07/2002 09:43:16

Sent by:  Lakshmi.Thampi <at> lntinfotech.com

To:   hema.ramani <at> wipro.com, stds-802-1 <at> ieee.org, bridge-mib <at> ietf.org,
      bridge-mib-admin <at> ietf.org, Les Bell/GB/3Com
cc:
Subject:  dot1qConstrainStatus

Hi
   Have a question regarding dot1qConstrainStatus in Constriants table of
RFC2674
What does this field signify?
regards
Lakshmi Thampi
Software Engineer
LT Infotech
Bangalore -01
India
Lakshmi.Thampi | 31 Jul 10:43 2002

dot1qConstrainStatus

Hi
   Have a question regarding dot1qConstrainStatus in Constriants table of
RFC2674
What does this field signify?
regards
Lakshmi Thampi
Software Engineer
LT Infotech
Bangalore -01
India

Gmane