Subject: Re: MAU-MIB draft pre-relase

From: "Dan Romascanu ELdevmt-TA" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 98 8:33:49 +0300

John,

>  > 2. paragraph 4.4.2. - I sugest we explicitely say something like 
'While 
>  > the 802.3 Repeater MIB, in its present format. was defined for 10 
Mb/s 
>  > and 100 Mb/s repeaters, it should apply to 1000 Mb/s repeaters as 
well. 
>  > An update of the 802.3 Repeater MIB might be issued in the future to 

>  > cover possible differences, but meantime, the present MAU MIB module 
can 
>  > be applied in conjunction with the 802.3 Repeater MIB.'
> 
> I can add it if you want, but I really don't think it is needed.  This
> MAU MIB also manages 10 Mb/s and 100 Mb/s MAUs, so it clearly applies 
to
> 10 Mb/s and 100 Mb/s repeaters.  I don't think we need to talk about
> mythical 1000 Mb/s repeaters, and I don't think we want so say much
> about a possible future update that probably won't happen.
> 

OK, leave it out.

>  > 3. REFERENCE clause of rpmauPortIndex still mentions RFC 1516
> 
> Changed to REFERENCE 2108.  Also, I am adding a REFERENCE clause
> to
> rpMauGroupIndex.  (It seems pretty inconsistent to have the reference
> for the port index and not the group index.)
> 

Right.

>  > 4. The new introduced objects ifMauAutoNegRemoteFaultAdvertised and 
>  > ifMauAutoNegRemoteFaultReceived reference the technologyAbility 
objects 
>  > from Clause 30, while their DESCRIPTION clauses seem to hint to 
something 
>  > else - that is to current fault indication status.
> 
> I believe they are the current fault indication status.  Since the
> fault status is exchanged during auto-negotiation, the IEEE spec rolls
> it into the technologyAbility objects.  We agreed in L.A. to separate
> it out in our MIB.  I think that even though the REFERENCE and
> DESCRIPTION may feel inconsistent, they are both correct.
> 

I still feel some clarification in the DESCRIPTION clause would help. 
Andrew proposes adding something like  "A value that identifies the 
latest fault indications received from the far end of a link by the local 
auto-negotiation entity for 1000Mbps MAUs.".

> If you have no objections, Dan, I would like to go ahead and submit
> this to the I-D editor with the above edits.  This is just an initial
> draft (we haven't even looked at implementation feedback from RFC 2239
> yet), and we will have plenty of time to polish this up.  But I would
> like to get an official draft out there for
> discussion.

Yes, please, go ahead. Also, please correct the two instances where my 
e-mail address appears to [email-masked]'.

Thanks,

Dan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Dan Romascanu,
Systems Architecture Group Manager,
LANNET Ltd.,
Voice: 972-3-645-8414, e-mail: [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

---

From: John Flick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:17:12 -0700 (PDT)

> auto-negotiation entity for 1000Mbps MAUs.".

I don't see the change, since this is already the exact text in the
DESCRIPTION of ifMauAutoNegRemoteFaultReceived.  I am updating the
DESCRIPTION of ifMauAutoNegRemoteFaultAdvertised with Andrew's
proposed text for that object:

  "A value that identifies any local fault indications
  that this MAU has detected and will advertise at the next
  auto-negotiation interaction for 1000Mbps MAUs."

 > e-mail address appears to [email-masked]'.

Done.

John