Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-09.txt

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:59:17 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, David B Harrington wrote:
> If you provide us with a list of necessary changes, we can discuss
> them and make them part of the AD review process.

I already did that.  But I'll do it again.

(a) the text in Sections 3.2 was adapted from the original 1493 but
now points to RFCs 3418 and 2863.  As a result it is now inaccurate.
Details were spelled out in previous e-mail responses to Juergen.
If you wish to leave the prerequisites exactly as they were in 1493
then you should probably revert to referring to RFC 1213.  If you
want to leave the references to 3418 and 2863 then please do
something to fix the inaccuracies, particularly in 3.2.2.

(b) undo the following changes (or get an AD waiver from the MIB
review guidelines):

BRIDGE-MIB.mi2:194 [5] {named-number-changed} warning: named number
`transparent-only' changed to `transparentOnly' at type used in
`dot1dBaseType'
BRIDGE-MIB.mi2:194 [5] {named-number-changed} warning: named number
`sourceroute-only' changed to `sourcerouteOnly' at type used in in
`dot1dBaseType'
 
> [soapbox]
> Working against constantly moving targets is one major reason why
> these documents have already taken three years. If it wasn't defined
> as a requirement when we started WGLC, I don't want to hear about it
> now.
> [end soapbox]

Excuse me, but you ASKED for this review, and you ASKED from someone
outside the WG to do it.  As an outsider I did not know the details
of the history, or the pre-WGLC requirements, or even that the doc
has been through WG last call, and you did not tell me about that
before I did the review.  So I applied the current MIB review
guidelines.  I am sorry that I could not read your mind.

If you are satisfied that the doc is "good enough" then ship it.  I
don't care.  I have spent enough time on this.  My job here is done
and I will shut up.

Bye,

Mike

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:41:35 -0500

inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> 
After reviewing the discussion more closely, I agree. 
This text should refer to RFC1213 for backwards compatibility.

There is no MODULE-COMPLIANCE in RFC3418 that appropriately reflects
RFC1213 compliance.
The same appears to be true for RFC2863.

> `sourceroute-only' changed to `sourcerouteOnly' at type used in in
I agree. The changes should be undone for backwards compatibility.

Unless I hear from others who object to this, I will forward these
recommendations to the ADs.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
co-chair, IETF Bridge WG

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:43:41 -0500

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the in-depth review. 
I realized when I read your review that I hadn't provided you with the
background info on the document.
I apologize for not doing so before you did the review.

Are there any further WG comments on these issues before I submit them
to the ADs for consideration as part of the AD review?

dbh

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 2:59 PM
> To: 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Re:
Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-09.txt

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:11:53 +0100

> The same appears to be true for RFC2863.

I personally hate to see this SMIv2 proposed standard version of the
BRIDGE-MIB depend on RFC1213. So if the current text is not good
enough, I would rather prefer to work through the details to come
up with text that says what we believe RFC 1493 did say, but referring 
to the current MIB modules we have. In the worst case, we list all 
the IF-MIB/SNMPv2-MIB objects that we believe were meant when RFC 
1493 was written. We may add a note that the IF-MIB/SNMPv2-MIB
have evolved and that compliance to the current IF-MIB/SNMPv2-MIB may 
require the implementation of additional objects but doing so is not 
mandated by the BRIDGE-MIB itself.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany