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

I am content with references to RFC1213.

But then I don't read sections 3.1 and 3.2 as creating a dependency; rather they
explain why certain objects from the 1993 IEEE definition are not included;
normative reference? may be.  You could, but I think it would be wrong to do so,
create a much bigger 3.1 and 3.2 explaining why objects from 2002 IEEE
definition are not included:-)

I also think the reference to RFC1213 is the more accurate since for me, the
later MIB modules, particularly IF-MIB, bring in a lot more baggage which
RFC1213 never
had.  RFC1213 has a view of an interface that was right for its time, wrong now,
and I think what we have got (apart from SMIv2) is mostly a MIB module of that
era.

So I would leave RFC1213 in 3.1 and 3.2 adding a statement pointing out that
(yes, we do know that:-) these objects have been refined by later MIB modules
and making the later ones normative.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "David B Harrington" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "'C. M. Heard'" <[email protected]>; "'Wijnen,Bert (Bert)'"
<[email protected]>; "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 2:26 PM
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-09.txt


> Hi Juergen,
>
> Personally, I thought the original vague text was fine, as was the
> original reference to RFC1213.
> I agree that most implementations would simply do all seven system
> objects, and similarly for interfaces.
>
> But we have competing interests. You and Bert want to get rid of
> references to RFC1213. Mike wants to get rid of inaccurate statements
> about relationships to other mibs. I would like to keep the RFC1213
> reference because compatibility with RFC1493 has been the primary
> goal, but unless others in the WG speak up and say that such
> compliance is the consensus and that RFC1213 is fine, as co-chair, I
> need to try to adjudicate the competing consensuses.
>
> One consensus is that we shouldn't use a reference to RFC1213. This is
> the view of you and Bert; we have two persons, one being an O&M AD.
> Mike and I are willing to accept that using it is undesirable, but not
> critical.
> Mike tells us that the OPS AD insists on accurate cross-document
> dependencies; again, we have two persons, one being an AD. (We haven't
> heard David actually say this however).
>
> Unfortunately, these two views are hard to reconcile; if you point to
> RFC3418 and RFC2863 instead of RFC1213, the statements become
> inaccurate; if you point to the available confirmance clauses, the
> document becomes inaccurate; if you list all seven system objects and
> the many interfaces objects as dependencies, the document becomes
> inaccurate.
>
> Me, I want see the document finished so we can move on to other
> documents in the WG charter, and move toward WG closure. What I see is
> a debate between two entrenched positions, neither of which helps an
> operator manage a device. This debate is all about IETF publication
> process and neither way of specifying the relationship between mib
> modules offers anything substantive to an operator.
>
> Will you yield on your insistence to not use RFC1213? Bert, will you
> yield on this point? If so, consensus could move to "while we are
> referenceing RFC1213, and that may be undesirable, using RFC1213 in
> the statement of relationships between mib modules is in fact the
> closest we can get to accurately portraying the original intent, and
> therefore its usage should be acceptable."
>
> David Harrington
> [email protected]
> co-chair, IETF Bridge WG
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 2:49 AM
> > To: David B Harrington
> > Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'C. M. Heard'; 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'
> > Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] 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
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib