From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue May 6 13:46:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01089 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h46HtCN12870 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:55:12 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h46Ht1812853; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:55:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h46HoZ812677 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:50:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00972 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D6TX-0000yJ-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 13:43:35 -0400 Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161] helo=hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D6TW-0000xa-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 13:43:34 -0400 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h46HhsY21173 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 13:43:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2R199SLZ>; Tue, 6 May 2003 19:43:53 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155018B868A@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Les Bell , Andrew Smith Cc: "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" , "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" , mibs@ops.ietf.org Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 19:43:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Les, Did you get any feedback after that March 9th meeting? If not, Can you poll Mick Seaman? Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > Sent: vrijdag 28 februari 2003 17:27 > To: Andrew Smith > Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > I have asked for the opinion of the IEEE 802.1 Task Force > Chair, Mick Seaman, on > this proposal. He believes that the use of 4095 as a > wildcard VLAN-ID would be > okay, but he wants to discuss it formally at the IEEE 802 > meeting in Dallas > (week commencing March 9). I will be attending this meeting. > > Les... > > > > > > "Andrew Smith" on 27/02/2003 17:53:56 > > Sent by: "Andrew Smith" > > > To: "'Wijnen, Bert \ > cc: "'Bridge-Mib \, mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > Bert, > > The whole point of defining these TCs in a separate document > is to serve > "possible future (yet-undefined) needs" - why else would we bother to > break them out in a separate document or module? > > The need to use VlanIdOrAny as an index in the future seems likely to > me. It is especially likely if you believe that we're trying to set a > precedent here for how to represent "some sort of packet field or > don't-care". Personally, I think it's a bit clunky to > overload the value > like this - a separate flag object is more elegant, but, if we're > comfortable with the overloading, I'd go with Randy and say (as I did > before - maybe you missed my message?) that the syntax here should be > unsigned, not signed (I understand the practical reasons for the > non-negative-index restriction in SNMP but it is a limitation on the > SMIv2 language). I don't think there's a need to consult with IEEE 802 > on this - I think most of the people with relevant opinions > on this are > already on this thread - but that's the bridge-mib WG chair's > call if he > wants to ask himself for help. > > My opinions (I know you're looking for others though ...). > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:36 AM To: Randy Presuhn (E-mail) Cc: Bridge-Mib (E-mail); mibs@ops.ietf.org Subject: VLAn ID Randy, you wrote: >To: bridge-mib@ietf.org >cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) >Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID > >Hi - > >I think it would be better if the "any" value in the *OrAny TC were >a non-negative value so that the type could be used to define an >index. There may not be a need today, but thinking ahead to >representing policy-like things wouldn't hurt. > As far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one sofar who has spoken up on the idea of not having a negative value for the "any" for the VlanIdOrAny TC that I proposed. You do not claim an immediate need, but a possible future (yet-undefined) need. S _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed May 7 03:09:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18795 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 03:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h477I3119017 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 7 May 2003 03:18:03 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h477Hu818978; Wed, 7 May 2003 03:17:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h477Ck818760 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 03:12:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18700 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 03:03:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DIzZ-0005xZ-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 03:05:29 -0400 Received: from ip-161-71-171-238.corp-eur.3com.com ([161.71.171.238] helo=columba.www.eur.3com.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DIzY-0005xW-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 03:05:29 -0400 Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.www.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id h4777aRG024272; Wed, 7 May 2003 08:07:37 +0100 (BST) Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id h4777sx26247; Wed, 7 May 2003 08:07:54 +0100 (BST) Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256D1F.00270A4D ; Wed, 7 May 2003 08:06:25 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM From: "Les Bell" To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" cc: Andrew Smith , "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" , mibs@ops.ietf.org, tony@jeffree.co.uk, mick_seaman@ieee.org Message-ID: <80256D1F.0027083B.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 08:05:51 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This was discussed at the March meeting. The decision was to conduct an email 'ballot' to determine if anyone had any objections to using 4095 as a wildcard VLAN ID. I have not heard about the details of how, or when, this will take place. Les... "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" on 06/05/2003 18:43:42 Sent by: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Les Bell/GB/3Com, Andrew Smith cc: "'Wijnen, Bert , "'Bridge-Mib , mibs@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: VLAn ID Les, Did you get any feedback after that March 9th meeting? If not, Can you poll Mick Seaman? Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > Sent: vrijdag 28 februari 2003 17:27 > To: Andrew Smith > Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > I have asked for the opinion of the IEEE 802.1 Task Force > Chair, Mick Seaman, on > this proposal. He believes that the use of 4095 as a > wildcard VLAN-ID would be > okay, but he wants to discuss it formally at the IEEE 802 > meeting in Dallas > (week commencing March 9). I will be attending this meeting. > > Les... > > > > > > "Andrew Smith" on 27/02/2003 17:53:56 > > Sent by: "Andrew Smith" > > > To: "'Wijnen, Bert \ > cc: "'Bridge-Mib \, mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > Bert, > > The whole point of defining these TCs in a separate document > is to serve > "possible future (yet-undefined) needs" - why else would we bother to > break them out in a separate document or module? > > The need to use VlanIdOrAny as an index in the future seems likely to > me. It is especially likely if you believe that we're trying to set a > precedent here for how to represent "some sort of packet field or > don't-care". Personally, I think it's a bit clunky to > overload the value > like this - a separate flag object is more elegant, but, if we're > comfortable with the overloading, I'd go with Randy and say (as I did > before - maybe you missed my message?) that the syntax here should be > unsigned, not signed (I understand the practical reasons for the > non-negative-index restriction in SNMP but it is a limitation on the > SMIv2 language). I don't think there's a need to consult with IEEE 802 > on this - I think most of the people with relevant opinions > on this are > already on this thread - but that's the bridge-mib WG chair's > call if he > wants to ask himself for help. > > My opinions (I know you're looking for others though ...). > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:36 AM To: Randy Presuhn (E-mail) Cc: Bridge-Mib (E-mail); mibs@ops.ietf.org Subject: VLAn ID Randy, you wrote: >To: bridge-mib@ietf.org >cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) >Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID > >Hi - > >I think it would be better if the "any" value in the *OrAny TC were >a non-negative value so that the type could be used to define an >index. There may not be a need today, but thinking ahead to >representing policy-like things wouldn't hurt. > As far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one sofar who has spoken up on the idea of not having a negative value for the "any" for the VlanIdOrAny TC that I proposed. You do not claim an immediate need, but a possible future (yet-undefined) need. S _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed May 7 06:01:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22524 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 06:01:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h47AARV00432 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 7 May 2003 06:10:27 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h47AAA800405; Wed, 7 May 2003 06:10:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h47A5L831894 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 06:05:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22431 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 05:55:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DLgX-00070Y-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 05:58:01 -0400 Received: from auemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.223.161] helo=auemail1.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DLgW-00070O-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 05:58:00 -0400 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h479wLq17443 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 05:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2R1998Q1>; Wed, 7 May 2003 11:58:20 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155018B8786@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Les Bell Cc: Andrew Smith , "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" , mibs@ops.ietf.org, tony@jeffree.co.uk, mick_seaman@ieee.org Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 11:58:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Any chance you can stirr up that 'ballot' process? Some people are waiting for a solution in IETF MIB land. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > Sent: woensdag 7 mei 2003 9:06 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: Andrew Smith; 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org; > tony@jeffree.co.uk; mick_seaman@ieee.org > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > This was discussed at the March meeting. The decision was to > conduct an email > 'ballot' to determine if anyone had any objections to using > 4095 as a wildcard > VLAN ID. I have not heard about the details of how, or when, > this will take > place. > > Les... > > > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" on 06/05/2003 18:43:42 > > Sent by: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" > > > To: Les Bell/GB/3Com, Andrew Smith > cc: "'Wijnen, Bert , "'Bridge-Mib , mibs@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > Les, Did you get any feedback after that March 9th meeting? > If not, Can you poll Mick Seaman? > > Thanks, > Bert > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > > Sent: vrijdag 28 februari 2003 17:27 > > To: Andrew Smith > > Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > > > > > > > I have asked for the opinion of the IEEE 802.1 Task Force > > Chair, Mick Seaman, on > > this proposal. He believes that the use of 4095 as a > > wildcard VLAN-ID would be > > okay, but he wants to discuss it formally at the IEEE 802 > > meeting in Dallas > > (week commencing March 9). I will be attending this meeting. > > > > Les... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Andrew Smith" on 27/02/2003 17:53:56 > > > > Sent by: "Andrew Smith" > > > > > > To: "'Wijnen, Bert \ > > cc: "'Bridge-Mib \, mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) > > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > > > > > Bert, > > > > The whole point of defining these TCs in a separate document > > is to serve > > "possible future (yet-undefined) needs" - why else would we > bother to > > break them out in a separate document or module? > > > > The need to use VlanIdOrAny as an index in the future seems > likely to > > me. It is especially likely if you believe that we're > trying to set a > > precedent here for how to represent "some sort of packet field or > > don't-care". Personally, I think it's a bit clunky to > > overload the value > > like this - a separate flag object is more elegant, but, if we're > > comfortable with the overloading, I'd go with Randy and say > (as I did > > before - maybe you missed my message?) that the syntax here > should be > > unsigned, not signed (I understand the practical reasons for the > > non-negative-index restriction in SNMP but it is a limitation on the > > SMIv2 language). I don't think there's a need to consult > with IEEE 802 > > on this - I think most of the people with relevant opinions > > on this are > > already on this thread - but that's the bridge-mib WG chair's > > call if he > > wants to ask himself for help. > > > > My opinions (I know you're looking for others though ...). > > > > Andrew > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:36 AM > To: Randy Presuhn (E-mail) > Cc: Bridge-Mib (E-mail); mibs@ops.ietf.org > Subject: VLAn ID > > > Randy, you wrote: > >To: bridge-mib@ietf.org > >cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) > >Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID > > > >Hi - > > > >I think it would be better if the "any" value in the *OrAny TC were > >a non-negative value so that the type could be used to define an > >index. There may not be a need today, but thinking ahead to > >representing policy-like things wouldn't hurt. > > > > As far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one sofar who > has spoken up on the idea of not having a negative value > for the "any" for the VlanIdOrAny TC that I proposed. > > You do not claim an immediate need, but a possible future > (yet-undefined) need. > > S > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu May 8 03:15:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14612 for ; Thu, 8 May 2003 03:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h487PGv15499 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 May 2003 03:25:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h487P5815483; Thu, 8 May 2003 03:25:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h47BSN805281 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 07:28:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23916 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 07:18:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DMyr-0007KV-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 07:21:01 -0400 Received: from he301war.uk.vianw.net ([195.102.244.164]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DMyq-0007KR-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 07:21:01 -0400 Received: from [213.106.0.77] (helo=mesh1000.jeffree.co.uk) by he301war.uk.vianw.net with asmtp (Exim 3.36 #7) id 19DMze-0006G6-00; Wed, 07 May 2003 12:21:50 +0100 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030507122046.01bbc0f8@mail.expressoweb.co.uk> X-Sender: tony+jeffree.co.uk@mail.expressoweb.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 12:22:00 +0100 To: stds-802-1@ieee.org From: Tony Jeffree Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" , Andrew Smith , "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" , mibs@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <80256D1F.0027083B.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , My apologies - I had forgotten about this. I will start a ballot forthwith. Regards, Tony At 08:05 07/05/2003 +0100, Les Bell wrote: >This was discussed at the March meeting. The decision was to conduct an email >'ballot' to determine if anyone had any objections to using 4095 as a wildcard >VLAN ID. I have not heard about the details of how, or when, this will take >place. > >Les... > > > > > >"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" on 06/05/2003 18:43:42 > >Sent by: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" > > >To: Les Bell/GB/3Com, Andrew Smith >cc: "'Wijnen, Bert , "'Bridge-Mib , mibs@ops.ietf.org >Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > >Les, Did you get any feedback after that March 9th meeting? >If not, Can you poll Mick Seaman? > >Thanks, >Bert > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > > Sent: vrijdag 28 februari 2003 17:27 > > To: Andrew Smith > > Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > > > > > > > I have asked for the opinion of the IEEE 802.1 Task Force > > Chair, Mick Seaman, on > > this proposal. He believes that the use of 4095 as a > > wildcard VLAN-ID would be > > okay, but he wants to discuss it formally at the IEEE 802 > > meeting in Dallas > > (week commencing March 9). I will be attending this meeting. > > > > Les... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Andrew Smith" on 27/02/2003 17:53:56 > > > > Sent by: "Andrew Smith" > > > > > > To: "'Wijnen, Bert \ > > cc: "'Bridge-Mib \, mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) > > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > > > > > Bert, > > > > The whole point of defining these TCs in a separate document > > is to serve > > "possible future (yet-undefined) needs" - why else would we bother to > > break them out in a separate document or module? > > > > The need to use VlanIdOrAny as an index in the future seems likely to > > me. It is especially likely if you believe that we're trying to set a > > precedent here for how to represent "some sort of packet field or > > don't-care". Personally, I think it's a bit clunky to > > overload the value > > like this - a separate flag object is more elegant, but, if we're > > comfortable with the overloading, I'd go with Randy and say (as I did > > before - maybe you missed my message?) that the syntax here should be > > unsigned, not signed (I understand the practical reasons for the > > non-negative-index restriction in SNMP but it is a limitation on the > > SMIv2 language). I don't think there's a need to consult with IEEE 802 > > on this - I think most of the people with relevant opinions > > on this are > > already on this thread - but that's the bridge-mib WG chair's > > call if he > > wants to ask himself for help. > > > > My opinions (I know you're looking for others though ...). > > > > Andrew > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org >[mailto:owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf >Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) >Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:36 AM >To: Randy Presuhn (E-mail) >Cc: Bridge-Mib (E-mail); mibs@ops.ietf.org >Subject: VLAn ID > > >Randy, you wrote: > >To: bridge-mib@ietf.org > >cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) > >Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID > > > >Hi - > > > >I think it would be better if the "any" value in the *OrAny TC were > >a non-negative value so that the type could be used to define an > >index. There may not be a need today, but thinking ahead to > >representing policy-like things wouldn't hurt. > > > >As far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one sofar who >has spoken up on the idea of not having a negative value >for the "any" for the VlanIdOrAny TC that I proposed. > >You do not claim an immediate need, but a possible future >(yet-undefined) need. > >S Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib