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?
> 

The text in .3 says that the maximum size of an OAMPDU is the
maxUntaggedFrameSize (see Table 57-9).  As I think about it more, the
maximum size of an untagged frame is not changing, just the name.
According to the latest draft of 802.3as, Table 57-9 changes
maxUntaggedFrameSize to maxBasicFrameSize, which is still defined as
1518.  

I don't think a liaison is necessary - the 802.3as draft is pretty
clear.  

- Matt