RE: [802.3.1_MIBS] [Bulk] Re: [802.1 - 7261] Opportunity to vote in IEEE 802.3 WG initial ballot: IEEE P802.3.1/D2.0 Ethernet MIBs
Geoff,
I got it, thanks.
It would be good to explain this in a paragraph in the introduction
section, for the benefit of MIB implementers who may not read the whole
document.
Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:44 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-MIB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [802.3.1_MIBS] [Bulk] Re: [802.1 - 7261]
> Opportunity to vote in IEEE 802.3 WG initial ballot: IEEE
> P802.3.1/D2.0 Ethernet MIBs
>
> Dan
>
> On 5/13/10 7:40 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > 1. I could not figure out the logic of the order of the
> inclusion of
> > the MIB modules. Maybe it is explained some place and I
> missed it. As
> > this order will probably stay with the evolution of the document I
> > would suggest to follow the order of the development of the MIB
> > modules - Ethernet Interfaces, Repeater, MAU, PoE, EPON,
> EFM, WAN, LLDP.
> >
> I believe that your suggested sequence would not make any
> sense to someone on the outside who has not been involved
> with the history of MIB development for Ethernet.
>
> I suggest what I believe is more transparent logic.
> That would be to sequence modules in the same sequence as
> their "foundation clauses" in Std 802.3 (That should pretty
> closely match your suggestion anyway) In that way, we would
> normally tuck things at the end, but on the odd occasion that
> 802.3 puts a clause at somewhere other than the end (usually
> with reason aforethought) we would track that and do the same
> in the MIB
>
> Hopefully, with that as the methodology, 802.3 and 802.3.1
> will maintain a reasonably parallel constrcution.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Geoff
>
> Geoffrey O. Thompson
> Chair, IEEE 802.23 Emergency Services Working Group
>
> GraCaSI Standards Advisory Services
> 158 Paseo Ct.
> Mountain View, CA 94043-5286
> <thompson@xxxxxxxx>
>