Re: Draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2 Issues Resolution
Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:39:36 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bridge |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20050106223936.GC24475@james> |
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:22:58PM -0500, David B Harrington wrote: > UNRESOLVED ISSUES: > > #543: smiv2-06: semantic changes; the following objects changed > semantics of an existing object: dot1dPortPriority, > dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange, and dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo. These > objects were modified to support 802.1t semantics. Since 802.1t > implementations have been fielded before this mib becomes available, > the behavior of current agent implementations might be non-compliant > with the updated definitions. Even an implementation that claims > compliance to bridgeCompliance1493 will be impacted because the > semantics of objects from RFC 1493 have been changed. dot1dStpPriority: dot1dStpPortPriority: I think the change is really a clarification that only a subset of the original value range is allowed for bridges that comply to IEEE 802.1t or IEEE 802.1w so I do not see a real problem here for _agent_ implementations. Bridges supporting IEEE 802.1t or IEEE 802.1w likely reject values which are outside the set of legal values and I would guess that this is exactly what is currently implemented and deployed. Can someone confirm my guess? dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange: Can't really judge the difference since I do not know enough about RSTP and tcWhile timers. Can someone explain what the impact of this change might be? dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo: I am not sure what the issue here is. Did this semantically chance at all? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany