Latest rfc3636bis draft

Mike,
I've submitted the latest draft of the rfc3636bis. I've implemented most of
the changes you've suggested in the past, except for two:

a) leaving dot3MauType* definitions in the MAU-MIB, changing each from
  an OBJECT-IDENITY definition to a simple OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
  assignment;
and
b) registering ianaMau module directly under mib-2

For item a) I couldn't find any MIB that imports dot3MauType*
definitions. The method you have suggested creates a lot of warnings
from the compiler. As an alternative I was thinking may be we should
leave the current dot3MauType* OBJECT-IDENITY definitions in the
MAU-MIB and define equivalent dot3MauType* in the IANA-MAU-MIB as
Textual Convention values. What do you think?

For the item b) - would it break some particular SNMP
application, which would be looking for dot3MauType under
snmpDot3MauMgt?

Regards,
-E.


-----Original Message-----
From:	[email protected] on behalf of C. M. Heard
Sent:	Fri 4/15/2005 7:51 PM
To:	[email protected]
Cc:	
Subject:	Re: FW: [Hubmib] Working Group Last Call
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> We are in the mid of the WGLC period, and we did not receive any
> comment yet. I want to believe that it's because all the
> submitted Internet-Draft are in good shape, but in order to make
> sure I would welcome messages like 'I read draft X / all the
> drafts, and they look OK'.

I will be looking over the 36363bis (MAU-MIB) draft over the
weekend and will post my comments before the WGLC period ends.
Sorry for the delay.

Mke Heard


_______________________________________________
Hubmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib

_______________________________________________
Hubmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib