RE: Augmenting MAU-MIB - was: RE: EFM MIB Internet-Drafts, WG Meetings

Edward,

(speaking as a contributor)

We agree on everything but the statistics. Obviously deprecated groups are deprecated, and non-relevant functions need not be supported. The remaining - statistics objects - are however very useful. They are not too big a MIB (fifteen objects or so?) and the compliance clauses would clarify what is needed. I can hardly see how you can debug an Ethernet interface in their absence, and I do not think that IF-MIB objects or specific EFM-CU-MIB objects can replace them.

Regards,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 23 October, 2003 6:20 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: '[email protected] '; 'Matt Squire '
> Subject: RE: Augmenting MAU-MIB - was: RE: [Hubmib] EFM MIB
> Internet-Drafts, WG Meetings
> 
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Here are some arguments for not supporting the EtherLike-MIB
> (just for the purpose of argument):
> 
> Let's look at some of the control groups in EtherLike-MIB (rfc-3635):
> - dot3PauseTable - The EFMCu interfaces do not support Pause 
> frames so this
> may be omitted.
> - dot3Tests - is already deprecated
> - dot3Errors - is already deprecated
> - dot3ColTable - no collisions on EFMCu
> 
> So this leaves just the dot3ControlTable with currently 
> supported Pause()
> function - see above for applicability.
> 
> The rest are statistics. There are some rudimentary 
> statistics in the IF-MIB
> + interface specific stats in EFM-CU-MIB which could be just 
> enough for the
> trouble shooting.
> 
> The advantage of not implementing EtherLike-MIB - well, not 
> implementing a
> pretty big MIB.
> 
> Regards,
> -E.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> To: Edward Beili
> Cc: [email protected]; Matt Squire 
> Sent: 23/10/03 17:15
> Subject: RE: Augmenting MAU-MIB - was: RE: [Hubmib] EFM MIB 
> Internet-Drafts,
> WG Meetings
> 
> My opinion (as a contributor) is that the Etherlike-MIB needs to be
> supported. It would be the first MIB in the family that would be
> excepted, and I would like to hear some technical arguments why we
> should do it. IF_MIB does not provide any Ethernet specific objects to
> manage the interface. 
> 
> I would defer the answer at the second question to John Flick - the
> editor of the MAU MIB. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: 23 October, 2003 4:56 PM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: '[email protected] '; 'Matt Squire '
> > Subject: Augmenting MAU-MIB - was: RE: [Hubmib] EFM MIB 
> > Internet-Drafts,
> > WG Meetings
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have a question as well - I assume that all new interfaces 
> > defined in
> > the EFM would be considered as Ethernet Like with mandatory 
> > EtherLike-MIB
> > and MAU-MIB implementation. Is this correct? Theoretically we 
> > could require
> > just IF-MIB, considering that most implementors choose not support
> > EtherLike-MIB.
> > 
> > We would also need to augment current MAU-MIB with new 
> > dot3MauType instances
> > defined for EPON and Copper interfaces. Do we have to open a 
> > new version of
> > MAU-MIB (and who does it) or there's another way of doing it?
> > 
> > -Edward
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Squire
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Sent: 23/10/03 16:01
> > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] EFM MIB Internet-Drafts, WG Meetings
> > 
> >  
> > Just speaking for the draft I submitted, it is a very early 
> draft that
> > still has a lot of holes.  All input is very appreciated.  
> >  
> > In particular, one big nagging question is how these new MIBs are
> > organized within the existing MIB heirarchy.  For the common 
> > stuff, does
> > it get a new mib-2 branch, or do we somehow hang it under the dot3
> > branch as something under the Ethernet tree?  
> >  
> > Hoping some of you MIB experts can lend some guidance.  
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 4:59 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]; Bert Wijnen (E-mail)
> > Subject: [Hubmib] EFM MIB Internet-Drafts, WG Meetings
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > As you have seen in the announcements that went out in the 
> last couple
> > of days, the three individual submission Internet-Drafts 
> including the
> > initial submissions for the EFM MIBs are now available. The relevant
> > URLs are:
> > 
> > *
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-squire-hubmib-efm-mib-00.txt
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-squire-hubmib-efm-m
> ib-00.txt>
> 
> *
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-beili-hubmib-efm-cu-
> mib-00.txt
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-beili-hubmib-efm-cu
> -mib-00.tx
> t> 
> *
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khermosh-hubmib-epon
> -mib-00.tx
> t
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khermosh-hubmib-epo
> n-mib-00.t
> xt> 
> 
> 
> First, I would like to thank the editors of the three 
> documents - Matt,
> Edward, and Lior for the effort, and for meeting the submission
> deadline. With this we have already accomplished in time the 
> first item
> in our new charter! 
> 
> Second, I would strongly suggest that you read the proposals and send
> your comments. The final work can happen only with your support and
> contribution, and will be as good as we all make it. Take into account
> that these are only initial proposals, and there is a long way to go.
> All comments need to be sent to the WG list, at [email protected]. 
> 
> Third, if there are other contributions, let me know, and prepare them
> in Internet-Draft format. Our next milestone is issuing the 
> first round
> of WG Internet-Drafts in December - we need to know if the 
> three drafts
> already published are the only contributions, or there will be other
> I-Ds to be considered. 
> 
> Now about WG meetings. The Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB WG will not
> meet during the November IETF meeting, because of the conflict between
> the IETF meeting and the IEEE Plenary that are scheduled for the same
> week. Personally I think that we do need face-to-face 
> meetings, although
> much of the work can be done on the mailing list. The next two
> opportunities for face to face meetings seem to be:
> 
> - an interim meeting in Vancouver, BC in January (I do not know the
> exact week) co-located with the IEEE 802.3 Interim meeting 
> 
> - meeting at the IETF meeting in Seoul, Korea (2/29-3/5)
> 
> Everybody who thinks that they can/will attend one or both of the
> meetings - please send me an e-mail - we need a headcount 
> before making
> a decision and engaging in any logistics. 
> 
> If we decide for an Interim, we need to have it approved by the IETF
> Area Director, and we might need a sponsor for the room 
> meeting space in
> Vancouver (maybe IEEE 802.3ah can help?).
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
>