RE: FW: [802.1] P802.1b/D0

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

DaveP,

Do not worry - CLR is an internal 'MIB Doctors' joke. We will either not propagate it externally, or re-define CLR as Consistency Language Rules :-)

To the - serious - point. I am afraid that the IEEE proposal belongs to your case 1). If you read the last few paragraph of the IEEE proposal, they are talking about migrating previously defined MIB modules under a new IEEE OIDs sub-tree, and see no sin in taking the objects (same name, same semantics) and 'migrating' them under a new 'standard' OIDs scheme. This is the reason for which DaveH find necessary to draw our (and their) attention.

Dan




> -----Original Message-----
> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 6:15 PM
> To: Harrington, David; MIB Doctors (E-mail)
> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Les Bell (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: FW: [802.1] P802.1b/D0
> 
> 
> HI,
> 
> Thanks for bring this to our attention.
> 
> First, labeling restrictions as "crappy little rules" is really
> not productive.
> 
> Secondly, I'm confused with the description of the problem situation.
> Is it
> 1) several different OID values being associated with the same
>    object type (notification type, etc)
> 2) the same ASN.1 identifier (in different modules) being used
>    for different object types (notification types, etc)
> 
> If it is the first, then there is a big problem. If it is the
> second, then it is not a problem (except for certain vendor
> tool-kits and applications). The second is not a problem
> because it can "occur naturally" in the wild, and is not
> illegal in the SMI when it occurs when the modules are
> developed by different enterprises.
> 
> At 10:48 AM 12/23/2002 -0500, Harrington, David wrote:
> 
> >FYI.
> >
> >This is is the IEEE 802.1b proposal for allocating OIDs for 
> their future standards.
> >http://www.ieee802.org/1/mirror/8021/802-b-drafts/d0/802b-d0.pdf
> >
> >It is scheduled for discussion at the January IEEE 802.1b interim.
> >
> >The primary use of IEEE OIDs appears to be for MIBs, so I 
> thought it prudent to ask this group to take a look at their 
> proposal and make recommendations.
> >
> >I note that in their section on migrating OIDs, they do not 
> discuss SMI rules, and since mibs are being developed, it 
> would be good if some of the CLRs we use are noted, such as 
> not having multiple OIDs for the same mib descriptor, and 
> conventions for creating unique descriptor names.
> >
> >Dan Romascanu and Les Bell have been acting as (unofficial?) 
> liaisons between 802.3 and 802.1 groups and the corresponding 
> IETF working groups. It would probably be good practice to 
> work through them if they are willing to provide that coordination.
> >
> >dbh
> Regards,
> /david t. perkins 
> 
>