RE: Personal Invitation to comment on IEEE 802.17 Working Group Ballo t

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

The MIB section is 'only' a hundred and something pages :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: 21 August, 2003 2:27 PM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Cc: 'tak@cisco.com'; Glenn Parsons
> Subject: FW: Personal Invitation to comment on IEEE 802.17 
> Working Group Ballo t 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the short notice, but if anyone wants to take a look
> at this MIB module, pls do so and send feedback to Glenn and pls
> copy the mreview list. Glenn, I hope this OK with you.
> 
> If you want access to the PDF file (some 600 pages), then
> pls ask Glenn for a user/password. But I think it would be
> good enough to just take a look at the MIB itself, which is attached.
> 
> Dan Romascanu and I are already checking the MIB as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn Parsons [mailto:gparsons@nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent: woensdag 13 augustus 2003 17:58
> To: 'Thomas Narten'; 'Bert Wijnen'; 'Frank Kastenholz'
> Cc: 'tak@cisco.com'
> Subject: Personal Invitation to comment on IEEE 802.17 Working Group
> Ballo t 
> 
> 
> Gentlemen, 
> As I discussed with you at previous IETF meetings, IEEE 
> 802.17 is interested in receiving your comments on the 
> working group ballot draft of RPR.  We are especially 
> interested in Bert's 'MIB doctor' review of our MIB as his 
> previous assistance has been very helpful.
> As an update, Draft 2.4 of RPR has just passed WG ballot 
> (similar to IETF WG last call) and is currently in a 
> 'recirculation ballot' before proceeding to sponsor ballot 
> (similar to IETF last call) in November.  The expectation is 
> that all technical details will be resolved and the sponsor 
> ballot vote will mainly be a simple approval.  This will be 
> followed by a review by the IEEE REVCOM -- which is often 
> just a check to ensure that due process was followed.  The 
> bottom line is that standard is stabilizing and is on track 
> to publish in early 2004.
> One of the WG ballot comments that relates to the MIB is 
> unresolved and besides reviewing the MIB in general, we would 
> appreciate guidance on this specific comment:
> RPR (IEEE 802.17) media counters (that will be implemented in 
> silicon) 
> do not count multicast and broadcast packets separately.  Is 
> this a serious 
> issue?  That is, should we re-evaluate counting them separately? 
> If we do not, how should we map this into the ifMIB which 
> does count them 
> separately?  Should we: 
>    a) ifInMulticastPkts = RPR multicast + broadcast 
>       ifInBroadcastPkts = 0 
>    b) ifInMulticastPkts = RPR multicast + broadcast 
>       ifInBroadcastPkts = RPR multicast + broadcast 
>    c) ifInMulticastPkts = 0 
>       ifInBroadcastPkts = 0 
>       ifInNUcastPkts = RPR multicast + broadcast 
>    d) ??? 
> The deadline for comments in the first of two recirc ballots 
> that will be held in the next two months is August 24th.  We 
> would appreciate it if you can forward any comments to us by 
> this deadline as we will be meeting to resolve the comments 
> starting on August 26th.
> The details on accessing the web page to retreive the PDF of 
> the draft and the ASCII MIB can be obtained from Glenn.   For 
> your convenience, I have attached the MIB as well. 
> We look forward to your comments. 
> Cheers, 
> Glenn Parsons 
> OAM Editor & IETF Liaison, IEEE 802.17 Working Group 
> 
> 
>