Re: partial comments on section 5 of ibif

Hi -

> From: "Vandana Rao" <[email protected]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Cc: "'Bert Wijnen'" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 9:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ipoverib] partial comments on section 5 of ibif
...
> The "correct" behavior for those counters in the context of IB would be to
> be set to 0.
> Looking at the ibif draft some more, I think that would be the right choice
> as the draft specifies that the
> mcast and unicast packets are counted in the unicast counters as is done in IB.
...

That's another problem; thanks for catching it.

We're going in circles here.  I've done my job by informing the WG that
I believe that what's in the ibif -05- i-d isn't going to fly.  You can try to
find someone else to review it, but I'm confident that any other MIB
reviewer will tell you just what I've told you: instantiating a counter
from RFC 2863 and not adhering to the semantics of that object
definition simply isn't an option.  The references in a document to
the various objects in the interfaces MIB are supposed to *elaborate*
on what they mean in the context of a particular interface type, not
contradict them.

Randy