Re: Working Group Last Call

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Edward Beili wrote:
> 1. Currently the values for the ifMauTypeListBits are defined in the
>    IANA-MAU-MIB, while the values for the ifMauAutoNegCapabilityBits,
>    ifMauAutoNegCapAdvertisedBits and ifMauAutoNegCapReceivedBits objects
>    are defined in MAU-MIB.
>    While none of the newly added MAU types (10GBASE-CX4, 2BASE-TL,
>    10PASS-TS, 100BASE-LX/BX, 1000BASE-LX/BX/PX) supports
>    auto-negotiation, this may change in the future (e.g. I don't see
>    a reason not to support it on P2P (-LX/BX) optical links as well as
>    for some new types). I suggest to put TC for these objects in the
>    IANA-MAU-MIB as well.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, C. M. Heard wrote:
> If there is a realistic possibility that future MAU types will
> support auto-negotiation, then it is probably advantageous to
> put the capability list under IANA maintenance so that it (like
> the MAU types) can be expanded quickly upon approval of a new
> 802.3 standard.  The main counter-argument would be that doing
> this would lengthen an already protracted process.  In making a
> decision it might be useful to solicit input from the 802.3 WG
> regarding the likelihood of the introduction of new
> auto-negotiation capabilities.

I just noticed that there is (at least) one more object in the MAU-MIB
that has MAU-type-specific values, and that is the enumerated INTEGER
object ifMauMediaAvailable.  Additional enumerated values for this
object may well be required for future MAU types, so there may be
reason to put its enumerations under IANA maintenance as well.

Edward, are there any more such objects lurking in the MAU-MIB?

Mike