C. M. Heard | 5 Jul 19:12 2002
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-02.txt

On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org wrote:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.  This draft is a work item of the Ethernet Interfaces
> and Hub MIB Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title		: Power Ethernet (DTE Power via MDI) MIB
> 	Author(s)	: A. Berger, D. Romascanu
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-02.txt
> 	Pages		: 28
> 	Date		: 02-Jul-02
> 	
> This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
> for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
> The document proposes an extension to the Ethernet-like Interfaces
> MIB [RFC2665] with a set of objects for managing a power Ethernet
> Powered Device (PD) and/or Power Source Equipment (PSE).
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-02.txt

Greetings,

I have some MIB doctor type comments about this draft.  When I run it through
smilint-0.4.0 with all complaints turned on except for warnings about long
identifier names I get this:

% smilint -l 9 -s ./POWER-ETHERNET-MIB |& egrep -v 'name .* longer than 32 characters$'
./POWER-ETHERNET-MIB:117: [6] use Integer32 instead of INTEGER in SMIv2
./POWER-ETHERNET-MIB:128: [6] use Integer32 instead of INTEGER in SMIv2
(Continue reading)

Internet-Drafts | 3 Jul 12:27 2002
Picon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-02.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Power Ethernet (DTE Power via MDI) MIB
	Author(s)	: A. Berger, D. Romascanu
	Filename	: draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-02.txt
	Pages		: 28
	Date		: 02-Jul-02
	
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
The document proposes an extension to the Ethernet-like Interfaces
MIB [RFC2665] with a set of objects for managing a power Ethernet
Powered Device (PD) and/or Power Source Equipment (PSE).

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-02.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-mib-02.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

(Continue reading)

C. M. Heard | 16 Jul 09:23 2002
Picon

How to proceed with "Request to Move RFC 1643 to Historic Status"?

Colleagues,

Some time ago John Flick and I submitted the draft
<draft-ietf-hubmib-1643-to-historic-00.txt>, entitled
"Request to Move RFC 1643 to Historic Status", for
working group review.  The discussion that took place
was inconclusive -- some thought that moving the spec
to Historic was appropriate, while others (notably Bob
Braden and Andrew Smith) advocated leaving it at
Standard but writing an Applicability Statement that
specifies the (limited) situations to which it applies.

So let me ask:  what do you think?  Is requesting historic
status for 1643 the right way to go, or should we instead
write an Applicability Statement saying that 1643 should
not be used for new implementations, but may continue to
be used for already-deployed interfaces that support
10 Mb/sec half-duplex mode only?  Or is some other
alternative preferred?

Two points to consider:

- a half-duplex 10 Mbps interface that supports all
the required objects in RFC 1643 _will_ conform to
dot3Compliance2 in the current EtherLike-MIB in
<draft-ietf-hubmib-etherif-mib-v3-02.txt> (and
will in addition implement the deprecated object
dot3StatsEtherChipSet, which is no longer required);

- however, such an implementation _may fail_ to
(Continue reading)


Gmane