RE: [802.1 - 1083] FW: Connectivity Fault Management MIB

Let me try a few (immediate and obvious answers).
But I am not answering all... and of course I am not
the author/editor of the MIB.

see inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IEEE 802.1 list-owner 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf
> Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:08
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [802.1 - 1083] FW: [Bridge-mib] Connectivity Fault Management
> MIB
> 
> 
>  Norm,
> 
> Can we have these questions answered in the next few days? 
> 
> Unless those are matters of clarification I will forward them as
> technical comments in my ballot. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rozin [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:35 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); MIB Doctors; Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Connectivity Fault Management MIB 
> 
> Please provide clarifications for the IEEE8021-CFM-MIB in .1ag:
> 
> 1. If dot1agCfmStackMepId==0 (a MEP is not configured on an 
> interface),
> what value does index dot1agCfmMdIndex have in dot1agCfmStackTable?
> 

Norm and I were discussion the security considerations and part
of that was/is the fact that an interface may have disappeared 
over a reboot. In that case, Norm suggested to use zero for
ifIndex. Seems fine to me. Syntax then will have to be 
changed to InterfaceIndexOr Zero.

> 2. Why the index, for example, in dot1agCfmMdTable is an 
> single integer
> one (dot1agCfmMdIndex) and not a pair {dot1agCfmMdFormat,
> dot1agCfmMdName}?
> In this case we will not need the object 
> dot1agCfmMdTableNextIndex, etc.
> 

This will create VERY long OIDs.
Possibly so long that a CREATE will not fit in one SNMP PDU.

> 3. The same concerns dot1agCfmMaIndex vs. {dot1agCfmMaFormat,
> dot1agCfmMaName}. In another words, why cannot we index 
> dot1agCfmMaTable
> by index {dot1agCfmMdFormat, dot1agCfmMdName, dot1agCfmMaFormat,
> dot1agCfmMaName}?
> 

same here

> 4. Why do we have both the field dot1agCfmMaMoreThanOneVid 
> and a special
> interval for dot1agCfmMaIndex to reflect a association with VLAN? IMHO
> simpler method is to have in this table number of VLANs, that 
> may be 0.
>

That would probably work also.
Not sure why it is so much simpler. But I could live with it.
 
> 5. In the Table 17-1 object dot1agCfmMdIndex is referred to
> 12.14.2.1.2:b, but 12.14.2.1.2:b describes "An MD Level". 
> Could you use integer index dot1agCfmStackLevel instead? 
> 

I will leave that to Norm or David (MIB editor)

Bert
> Thanks, Alex
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:10 AM
> To: MIB Doctors; Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
> Subject: [Bridge-mib] Connectivity Fault Management MIB 
> 
> 
> The IEEE 802.1 P802.1ag/D7.1 - Connectivity Fault Management 
> is running
> a recirculation ballot. 
> 
> The full standard draft is available at: 
> 
> http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/ag-drafts/d7/802-1ag-d7-1.pdf
> 
> The MIB module in txt format is available at: 
> 
> http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/ag-drafts/d7/8021ag71.mib
> 
> Please review and provide comments until 11/23 to me, Bert, 
> or the IEEE
> 802.1 WG e-mail list. 
> 
> Folks who need the IEEE Web site username and password for the purpose
> of reviewing these documents are invited to approach me or Bert. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> ---- IEEE 802.1 Email List ----
> DELETE THIS FOOTER from copies, forwards, & replies.
> Working Group 802.1 Web pages:
>                         http://www.ieee802.org/1/
> Active ballots: P802.1ag, P802.1AR; see
>               http://www.ieee802.org/1/active-ballots.html
> List subscriber pages:
>            http://www.ieee802.org/1/email-pages/pztfq906.html
>