Subject: Seeking comments on new BPI bare MIB for informational RFC

From: Rich Woundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 22:12:38 -0500

Folks,

At the last IETF, I accepted the responsibility to get the BPI MIB (not the
BPI+ MIB) published as an Informational RFC.

I submitted my last BPI MIB proposal back in December 1998, which became
quite controversial because it changed the indexes on two existing tables
(docsBpiCmTEKTable and docsBpiCmtsTEKTable). There were also quite a few
minor fixes which did not seem controversial.

I propose to the working group that the minor fixes should be maintained in
the MIB for the Informational RFC. I have incorporated the changes into a
bare BPI MIB that I have attached to this message, which I have compiled
successfully using SMICng.

The minor fixes include:
- corrections to object syntaxes (usually INTEGER to Integer32)
- corrections in object value ranges (to match the BPI spec, and/or to meet
CableLabs testing needs)
- corrections to some textual descriptions
- additions of REFERENCE clauses

The specific implementation differences would be:
- docsBpiCmPublicKey and docsBpiCmtsAuthCmPublicKey: correction in legal
public key lengths
- docsBpiCmAuthWaitTimeout, docsBpiCmReauthWaitTimeout,
docsBpiCmAuthRejectWaitTimeout: correction in legal value ranges
- docsBpiCmTEKPrivacyEnable: change to read-only
- docsBpiCmtsDefaultAuthGraceTime and docsBpiCmtsDefaultTEKGraceTime:
remove from MIB

Does anyone object to this approach???

-- Richard Woundy, Cisco Systems