Subject: RE: Comments for wis mib

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:01:49 +0200

I did not hear any significant objections or discussions either. As
Ethernet WG chair I would propose that if no objections are raised until
the end of the week we consider the design team recommendations as
adopted and we proceed to issue draft-ietf-hubmib-wis-mib-01.txt based
on them.
 
I would like to hear the blessing from the atommib WG chairs as well.
 
Mike Heard draw my attention to a change between version D3.2 and D3.3
of the IEEE draft - concerning the elimination of the acResetWIS object.
I would recommend that this change be reflected in the new version of
the MIB, as well as other nits that we might discover.
 
Regards,
 
Dan

 -----Original Message-----
From: Norseth, KC [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:37 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Comments for wis mib

The team formed from people of the atommib and the hubmib group
submitted an ID for Definitions of Managed Objects 
for the Ethernet WAN Interface Sublayer
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ayers-wis-mib-00.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ayers-wis-mib-00.txt.  We have
not heard of any objections to the ID, so I would like to move it to
replace the "official" ID that is identified in the hubmib WG (
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-wis-mib-00.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-wis-mib-00.txt)

Anyone comments on this? 

K.C. Norseth 
Firmware Engineering -  Routing 
Enterasys Networks 
   Phone: 801.887.9823 
   FAX:    801.972.5789 
   Email:   [email-masked] 
   www:     <http://www.enterasys.com> http://www.enterasys.com 
<<Norseth, KC.vcf>>

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:34:50 -0800 (PST)

> the MIB, as well as other nits that we might discover.

Here is my list of changes:

- update the reference from P802.3ae/D3.2 to P802.3ae/D3.3 and
make the necessary fixes for alignment (currently all I have found
is the need to remove mention of acResetWIS in the Section 3.6
and also in Section 3.3).

- update the CONTACT-INFO clause ... guidance as to what is appropriate
is requested from the WG chairs and the design team moderator.

- if there will be a new SONET-MIB I-D before the Salt Lake City
IETF meeting, then the references should point to it instead of
RFC 2558 (since we depend on one of the changes to appear in
the next version of that MIB).

Regards,

Mike