RE: Response to comments on OAM doc

> 
>      dot3OamMaxOamPduSize OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX      Integer32 (64..1522)
> ]] This should be Unsigned32.
> ]] Also, is 1522 really the max?
> 
> 
> MBS:  I'll change to Unsigned32 though its not clear to me why thats
> better.  The maximum value, as defined in [802.3ah] is equal the
> maximum untagged frame size (which is undergoing change in 802.3 as we
> speak).  I'd like to put a variable in here that ties it to the
> maxUntaggedFrameSize, but I don't know what that variable would be.
> Numerically, it should currently be 1518, not 1522.  
> 

See RFC 4181, Section 4.6.1.1 for the reason of using Unsigned32.

Concerning the new max PDU size. It is true that IEEE 802.3as is working
at a frame extension that would take the max frame size to a new value,
around 2k I believe. We should be able to liaison with them and
determine if they already can tell us what is this value. 

However, my question is whether EFM OAM is supposed to use the new max
size. It was designed by the time a non-tagged frame was (actually still
is by today) 1518. Is there any text that says what the max size of a
OAM PDU can be - 1518, or the max size of the day?

Thanks,

Dan