Re: Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-09.txt

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 08:34:14PM -0500, David B Harrington wrote:

[...]
 
> --- comments on Juergen's proposed text:
> Section 3.2.1: I believe Juergen's proposed text that says
> 'Implementation of the BRIDGE-MIB module requires
> that at least ... are implemented' is inaccurate; this mib module can
> be implemented without those objects if desired, but you will miss
> some of the objects recommended by 802.1-D, and the functionality they
> provide (but then even if you implement this mib module plus those
> objects, you'll still be missing some objects listed in 802.1-D and
> the functionality they provide, as described in 3.1).

Obviously there is no common view what RFC 1493 was trying to say in
section 3.2.* and this is why I orginally liked to keep some rather
vague text. In practical terms, I have never seen a bridge which did
not implement the seven system scalars so from a practical perspective,
this whole debate is really a mood point and a waste of time.
 
> Section 3.2.2: I believe Juergen's proposed ext that says
> 'Implementation of the BRIDGE-MIB module requires that the following
> objects of the IF-MIB module are implemented' is inaccurate in its
> list, as I describe above.

It boils down to how you read the first paragraph in 3.2.2. My reading 
is that it says segments are considered subnetworks from the interfaces 
point of view and that the interfaces group is mandatory for all systems. 
Again, I have never seen a bridge which did not implement the full 
interfaces group.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany