Re: Compilation compatibiltiy with draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05

Edward,

Wow! I'm extremely surprised that correcting a typo and breaking
compilation compatibility is ok.

- Clay

On 9/3/2006 7:01 PM, Edward Beili wrote:

Clay,

Here is the last email on that
subject, explaining the reasoning and justification for this change.

Regards,

-E.

-----Original Message-----

From: C. M. Heard [ mailto:[email protected] ]

Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 19:29

To: Edward Beili

Cc: Hub Mib

Subject: RE: [Hubmib] WGLC - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-03.txt

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Edward Beili wrote:

> Thanks for such a quick and thorough review.

Actually it wasn't terribly thorough but you are welcome anyway :-)

> About the changes to the enum labels in
IANAifMauAutoNegCapBits

> - in the original RFC 3636, the labels for the bit values of

> ifMauAutoNegCapabilityBits, ifMauAutoNegCapAdvertisedBits and

> ifMauAutoNegCapReceivedBits objects are all the same, with
the

> exception of 4 labels: bFdxPause(8), bFdxAPause(9),
bFdxSPause(10),

> bFdxBPause(11). These labels have a capital 'F'

> in ifMauAutoNegCapAdvertisedBits and
ifMauAutoNegCapReceivedBits

> objects, while having a small 'f' in
ifMauAutoNegCapReceivedBits.

> Since all the other labels are exactly the same with the same
meaning,

> I have assumed this to be a typo in the original rfc3636 and
fixed it

> by defining a single IANAifMauAutoNegCapBits TC, common to
all the

> ifMauAutoNegCap*Bits objects. I just looked in the RFC 4181,
it allows

> for the names of the named numbers and named bits to be
changed to

> correct typographical errors, which I believe is the case
here.

Ah, I see what you mean -- ifMauAutoNegCapReceivedBits picks up
named bit label changes as a result of moving to the common
IANA-maintained TC for all of the auto-negotiation objects because its
bit labels were inconsistent with those for the other objects, probably
as the result of a typo. That point escaped me because I was not
looking carefully at the MIB module, just at the smidiff report. I
agree that the correct thing to do is to have a common TC for all these
objects and that the named bit labels you chose in the

-03 draft are the right ones. So from my perspective this appears
to be ready to go to the IESG.

Mike

----------
From: Clay
Sikes [ mailto:[email protected] ]

Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 17:24

To: Edward Beili

Cc: IETF Hub MIB Working Group; C. M. Heard

Subject: Compilation compatibiltiy with
draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05

Hi Edward,

First, thanks for all the editor work you are doing on the MIB modules.

I attempted to update an implementation of the MAU-MIB from RFC 2668 to
that which is specified in this ID and ran into a compilation
compatibility issue. An update from RFC 2668 to RFC 3636 does not have
this compilation compatibility issue.

In this ID, the ifMauAutoNegCapabilityBits,
ifMauAutoNegCapAdvertisedBits, and ifMauAutoNegCapReceivedBits have
their syntax changed to use the IANAifMauAutoNegCapBits TC. I strongly
support this change. However, RFC 2668 and RFC 3636 have different
labels for the following named bits for the ifMauAutoNegCapabilityBits
object's syntax:

- Bit 8 -- 2668/3636 bfdxPause(8),
this ID bFdxPause(8)

- Bit 9 -- 2668/3636 bfdxAPause(9),
this ID bFdxAPause(9)

- Bit 10 -- 2668/3636 bfdxSPause(10),
this ID bFdxSPause(10)

- Bit 11 -- 2668/3636 bfdxBPause(11),
this ID bFdxBPause(11)

Compilation of the ID fails because some these labels changed from
2668/3636 to this ID.

Although the RFC 2578 Section 10.2 allows the labels of named bits to
change, this is generally not a good idea. In the case of this ID,
"over the wire" operation is not effected, but compilation
compatibility has been broken. Please refer to RFC 4181 Section 4.9
top of page 29 for a discussion on changing labels for named bits.

Given the fact that back in RFC 2668 ifMauAutoNegCapabilityBits have
different labels for bits 8 through 11 then
ifMauAutoNegCapAdvertisedBits and ifMauAutoNegCapReceivedBits, it would
seem like there needs to be a different TC in the proposed IANA-MAU-MIB
for ifMauAutoNegCapabilityBits to use then what
ifMauAutoNegCapAdvertisedBits and ifMauAutoNegCapReceivedBits use to
maintain compilation compatibility.

I hope this has not already been discussed. I did a quick glance in
the list and didn't see anything.

Thoughts?

Best Regards,

Clay Sikes

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