RE: WG Last Call:dratf-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-03.txt

I actually was not suggesting for a recommendation either way, but for a text that says 'makes no assumption', which reflects a neutral stand. 

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Bell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 22 November, 2004 5:44 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: John Flick; [email protected]; Congdon, Paul T
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] WG Last Call:dratf-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-03.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember that in the meetings when this was discussed, it 
> was the decision of
> the WG that a VLAN should not be represented as an entry in 
> the ifTable.  There
> was a lot of debate about this, with strong feelings in both 
> camps.  Eventually,
> the debate was won by those who did not consider a VLAN to be 
> an interface.
> This debate occured before RFC 2613 was published.  I think 
> the argument goes
> something like: "A VLAN is a logical medium shared by a collection of
> interfaces."
> 
> I believe things have moved on since then and it would be 
> useful to acknowledge
> that many implementations represent VLANs in the ifTable, but 
> I think we should
> not mandate it, as that would mean any implementation that 
> had strictly
> conformed to RFC 2674 would then be non-conformant.  So I 
> would suggest changing
> the wording below to say "... may also be represented by an 
> entry in ifTable."
> 
> Les...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email protected]>@ietf.org on 
> 22/11/2004 14:00:46
> 
> Sent by:  [email protected]
> 
> 
> To:   "John Flick" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
> cc:   "Congdon, Paul T" <[email protected]>
> Subject:  RE: [Bridge-mib] WG Last 
> Call:dratf-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-03.txt
> 
> 
> True. I am not sure where this recommendation comes from, but 
> this indeed
> contradicts RFC 2613, which recommends that a 'propVirtual' 
> ifEntry is created
> for a smonDataSource of type VLAN.
> 
> I would suggest that this recommendation be relaxed, by replacing:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>  This document recommends that, within an entity, VLANs which are
>    instantiated as an entry in dot1qVlanCurrentTable by either
>    management configuration through dot1qVlanStaticTable or by dynamic
>    means (e.g.  through GVRP), are NOT also represented by an entry in
>    ifTable.
> 
> with
> 
> NEW:
> 
>  This document does not make any assumption that within an 
> entity, VLANs which
>    are
>    instantiated as an entry in dot1qVlanCurrentTable by either
>    management configuration through dot1qVlanStaticTable or by dynamic
>    means (e.g.  through GVRP), are also represented by an entry in
>    ifTable.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> > 12. In section 3.4.2.1, second paragraph, the recommendation
> > that VLANs
> >      are not represented in the ifTable conflicts with 
> SMON.  Not sure
> >      what to do about this one, and I'm not sure IEEE is the
> > right place
> >      to deal with it.
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> [email protected]
>  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> 
> 
> 
> 
>