Subject: [Bridge-mib] 52nd IETF - Bridge-MIB WG agenda

From: "Les Bell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:54:03 +0000

52nd IETF
Bridge-MIB WG
AFternoon Sessions I - 13:00-15:00 Wednesday, December 12, 2001
Proposed Agenda:

13:00 Introduction, mailing lists, etc.
13:05 Call for Implementation Reports (RFCs 1493, 1525, 2674)
13:10 SMIv2 version of Bridge-MIB
13:55 SMIv2 version of Source Routing MIB
14:00 Bridge MIB Extensions 2 (for 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v, 802.1w)
14:45 Internet-Draft for IEEE 802.X MIB
14:50 Other IEEE 802.1 work (802.1s)
14:55 Any other business
15:00 Close

The documents under discussion are:
  - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt
  - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-srmib-smiv2-00.txt
  - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-01.txt

Bridge MIB issues still to be closed:
  - dot1dBasePortIfIndex SYNTAX should be InterfaceIndex not Integer32.
  - dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo is an octet string with no size specified.
  - There is no object to turn (R)STP off on a given port.

Source Routing MIB issues still to be closed:
  - Should we just re-cycle this at Proposed status?

Bridge MIB Extension 2 issues still to be closed:
  - The U-BRIDGE-MIB and V-BRIDGE-MIB should probably be done as
    updates to RFC 2674.
  - Should we include objects for: Port Role, Legacy Neighbour,
    and received BPDU counters (Rstp, Config, Tcn)?

802.1X issues still to be closed:
  - Should we publish the IEEE 802.1X MIB as an informational RFC?
  - Copyright release from IEEE.

802.1s issues:
  - Should we adopt this as a work item?

Les Bell

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

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 12:08:36 -0800

Les,

I believe that it would be appropriate to include time to talk about the
upcoming bridge MIB testing planned by IWL. Defining documents is just
the first step in creating a standard. Demonstrating interoperability
and, if necessary, updating implementations or the documents is they next
step in creating a standard.

I believe that the WG should ask for an overview of what is to be tested
and provide feedback to the test plans to help insure that the testing
will provide forward progress for the WG. 

>  - Should we adopt this as a work item?

Regards,
/david t. perkins