Subject: [Hubmib] Edit list for EtherLike-MIB

From: John Flick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 20:07:07 -0800

Hi,

The following is my list of outstanding edits to the current EtherLike
MIB draft, draft-ietf-hubmib-etherif-mib-v3-00.txt.  These should
be non-controversial, and should not require any agenda time in SLC.
If you disagree with this, speak up now.

I will be posting issues that should be discussed in SLC in later
messages.

1. Add references to WIS and SONET drafts.

2. Add pointer to WIS MIB draft to section 3.2.1 "Layering Model".

3. Correct ifHighSpeed value for WIS in section 3.2.8 to 9,294
   (as discussed in London).

4. Update ifConnectorPresent mapping to indicate that it will be
   'false' on WIS interfaces.

5. Add Case diagram for IF-MIB statistics to explain octet/packet
   mapping issues (as discussed in London).

6. Fix cut-and-paste error in rollover time for
   dot3HCStatsFrameTooLongs (as discussed in London).

7. Update Acknowledgements section.

8. Update to refer to 802.3ae draft 3.4.

John

_______________________________________________
Hubmib mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:12:04 -0800 (PST)

> If you disagree with this, speak up now.
[ ... ]
> 1. Add references to WIS and SONET drafts.

Agreed, but note that the relevant SONET-MIB draft is still "forthcoming".

> 2. Add pointer to WIS MIB draft to section 3.2.1 "Layering Model".

It's actually in Section 3.4.1

>    (as discussed in London).

Agreed.

>    'false' on WIS interfaces.

That, I think, depends on the resolution of the following item on the WIS
design team's list of open issues to be discussed at the joint meeting:

    Compliance:  should the ETHER-WIS and SONET-MIB objects be required
        for all 10GBASE-W interfaces?  An alternative would be to make
        them optional.  In that case 10GBASE-W interfaces would require
        a multi-layer ifStackTable only if ETHER-WIS and SONET-MIB were
        supported;  if not, then the usual single-layer model would apply.

Certainly, ifConnectorPresent should be 'false' for the ethernetCsmacd(6)
layer whenever ETHER-WIS and SONET-MIB are implemented, and the current
WIS MIB draft takes the position that implementation of these MIB modules
is REQUIRED for 10GBASE-W interfaces.  However, it was suggested in the
WIS design team conference call of 31 August that detailed SONET-related
information might not be needed for all 10GBASE-W applications;  perhaps
there are applications for which the information provided by the
EthernetLike-MIB and MAU-MIB (e.g., ifMauMediaAvailable and
ifMauMediaAvailableStateExits) might be sufficient.  If such applications
exist then ETHER-WIS and SONET-MIB should be optional supplementary
MIBs for 10GBASE-W interfaces, and if those MIBs were not implemented
then ifConnectorPresent would be 'true' for the ethernetCsmacd(6) layer.

Mike

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:12:04 -0800 (PST)

[ ... ]

Agreed.

Mike

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:53:14 -0800 (PST)

[ ... ]
>         supported;  if not, then the usual single-layer model would apply.

The consensus of the participants at the joint hubmib and atommib
meeting was that the ETHER-WIS and SONET-MIB objects mentioned in
the ETHER-WIS compliance statement should be mandatory for all
SNMP-managed 10GBASE-W interfaces (see message entitled "WIS MIB
mandatory objects issue summary and proposed resolution").  So
unless this conclusion is overturned by objections from the mailing
list, the update to the ifConnectorPresent text should proceed as
originally proposed.

//cmh

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:53:14 -0800 (PST)

[ ... ]

//cmh