Subject: RE: Comments on fcmgmt 06

From: "blumenau, steven" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:59:49 -0400

The original definition has these counters as unsigned so -1 would not work.

Any other comments ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Infante, Jon [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 11:09 PM
> To: blumenau, steven
> Cc: 'Les Lovett'; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: Comments on fcmgmt 06
> 
> 
> FYI
> In other FC documents, like FC-MI the HBAAPI annex, 
> unsupported counters
> 
> are identified by setting all bits in the counter (-1).
> 
> Jon Infante
> Emulex
> 
> 
> "blumenau, steven" wrote:
> 
> > how would you propose unsupported counters be identified.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Les Lovett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 11:53 AM
> > > To: blumenau, steven
> > > Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> > > Subject: Comments on fcmgmt 06
> > >
> > >
> > > Regarding most recently published fcmgmt MIB,
> > > draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib-06.txt
> > > Specifically - Port Statistics table
> > > All of the counters are defined as Counter64.
> > > The table's comment header says to set the most significant
> > > bit to 1 if
> > > the counter is not supported.
> > >
> > > My opinion is - do not use bit 1 {high order bit} to indicate
> > > supported/not-supported. Instead use all 64 bits as a counter.
> > >
> > > LesLovett
> > >
>