Subject: names in gsmp spec and mib

From: ad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 17:27:13 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

This message has been bouncing becuase Hasse is sumitting it from an
address that is not subscribed to the list.  To prevent spam, I have
closed the list to non-member submissions.  Apologies for the
inconvenience. 

a.

ps. response later.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: names in gsmp spec and mib
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:02:47 +0200
From: Hans Sjostrand  <[email-masked]>

Hi,

I have a question about names, which kind of goes back to the mib.

Is the switch name in the switch configuration message the same as the
sender name in the adjacency message? In that case, why is it sent in
duplicate? The sender name is already known at the time of the switch
configuration message. If not, are the sender name in the adjacency mesage
bound by the same type restriction that it should have the 24 most
significant bits set to an OUI? And is it possible to think that atleast
in most cases they are hte same. translated to mib terms this could mean
that we take away the switch name object (if the two are the same) or
atleast set the default of the switch name object to the value of VseId.

Also, I propose to take out the VsceName which I belive was a
misunderstanding from my part because of a writing error in the gsmp spec;

I belive that the text "The Switch Configuration message has the following
format" on page 83 should be "The Switch Configuration success response
message has the following format".

Regards
/// Hasse

---

From: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 07:29:39 -0400

> sender name in the adjacency message? 

Yes I think they are the same in the case of the switch entity.  The
VSCE
uses its name when it is the sender.

> In that case, why is it sent in
> configuration message. 

It is needed in the adjacency message to identify the two entities
involved in the adjacency.  It the switch configuration it might be
redundant, but given the funtion of the Switch Configuration message,
the redundnacy is probably warranted.

> If not, are the sender name in the adjacency mesage
> significant bits set to an OUI? 

This is a historical restriction.  I am not sure that it is is
absolutely
necessary, but it strongly advised.  The wording between the two should 
probably be clarified and made consistent.

> And is it possible to think that atleast

Seems reasonable to me.  I can't think of a reason for including both
the 
VsceId and VsceName.

> message has the following format".

I don't think so.  This is one of the artifacts of GSMP  - identical 
request/response messages.

Regards,
a.

-- 

Avri Doria
+1 401 663 5024

---

From: "David Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:30:53 -0400

What, precisely, do you mean by "closing the list"? If it means that
postings from non-members are diverted to the moderator for screening,
that's fine. If it means rejecting posts explicitly with a note to send to
the moderator to request posting to the list, that's less fine but probably
ok.

If it means simply rejecting messages with no instructions on how to get it
posted, or even worse silently dropping it on the floor, that is NOT fine
and does not meet the open-ness criteria for IETF WG email lists.

Dave.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> ad
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 5:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 14:49:34 -0400

Hi,

As the list moderator, I get all rejected mailings becasue when they are 
from non-list members.  Those that aren't SPAM, I pass on within a day.
I assumed that this extra activity on my part made the list a little
easier
for the participants of the list.  I have NEVER excluded a non SPAM 
message from the list.

I apologize for doing this in a manual manner, and I hope that it is
fine.
If it is not, I will stop being a filter for SPAM becasue I don't have
another method readily at my disposal.

Thanks
a.

-- 

Avri Doria
+1 401 663 5024

---

From: "David Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:57:06 -0400

Manual screening by the moderator is quite acceptible IETF open-ness
practice. I raised the issue because the original message implied the list
was "closed to non-members" which is not the case here.

I am sensitive to this becuase I myself got blackholed recently by a list
which just discarded messages from non-members without even a reject, let
alone a divert to the moderator. (Don't ask which - it's being fixed).

Thanks for the clarification. Dave.

> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 2:50 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: names in gsmp spec and mib
>
>
> Hi,
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Joachim Buerkle)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:53:25 +0100

Hi,

as a active participant on the list and in the IETF WG meetings since the WG was
founded I want to thank you Avri for preventing us from SPAM.
I also NEVER heard that somebody (IETF meeting participants, P1520, MSF,
...) has problems with this way.

I really prefer it in this way, since there is already enough SPAM on the IETF
Mailinglists. I think that the FTPEXT-WG ([email-masked]) has the list with
most SPAM (its really the worse).

Joachim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

---

From: Hans Sjöstrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:33:54 +0200

So, the spec is kind of untouched but the mib will have some small
changes due to this
- The gsmpVsceName object in the gsmpVsceTable will be removed. 
- The gsmpVseName object in gsmpVseTable I propose to retain. I would 
  think that it's most often the same so I'll define the default value
to be 
  set to the same as the ID if it's not separatle specified. Or is it
redundant 
  altogether and should be removed? 

They'll be regarded as last call comments. 

Regards
/// Hasse

ps.
I do think it's ok to manually filter non member messages but it would
be nice to have a autoreply indicating that fact if it's not to much of
a trouble. 
ds.