Subject: Re: MAU-MIB draft pre-relase

From: "Dan Romascanu ELdevmt-TA" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 98 11:33:40 +0300

Here are my two agorots:

1. paragraph 4.1 - I propose that we exclude the brakets '(but not 1000 
Mb/s repeaters)'. My point - it's obvious as this is a MAU MIB and not a 
Repeater MIB, and mentioning it might confuse. See also the next comment

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.'

3. REFERENCE clause of rpmauPortIndex still mentions RFC 1516

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.

5. DESCRIPTION of mauBroadBasic references RFC 1515. I do not understand 
it (I know it's not new).

Dan

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

---

From: John Flick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:23:40 -0700 (PDT)

> Repeater MIB, and mentioning it might confuse. See also the next comment

Agreed.

 > 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.

 > 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.)

 > 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.

 > it (I know it's not new).

Yes, that was there in RFC 2239.  It probably is not needed for this
group.  I believe it was there to document which objects were
originally part of RFC 1515.

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.

John