FREE Computer With Merchant Account Setup

From meb31p@ausi.com Sun May 6 11:42:40 2001 Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com ([171.71.163.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA11776 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 11:42:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com [171.69.2.19]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id f46F8WQ02343 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 08:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy2.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f46F8PB05445 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.kirarasha.co.jp (IDENT:root@ns.kirarasha.co.jp [210.227.155.242]) by proxy2.cisco.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f46F8AP17897 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 08:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host (03-124.044.popsite.net [64.24.247.124]) by ns.kirarasha.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-01/03/00) with ESMTP id XAA19391; Sun, 6 May 2001 23:49:36 +0900 Message-Id: <200105061449.XAA19391@ns.kirarasha.co.jp> From: "Ben Harris" Subject: You Really Should #243E To: win49dj@kirarasha.co.jp X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE VÐßD.1712.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 10:54:37 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0" This is a MIME Message ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0" ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ***** This is an HTML Message ! ***** ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FREE Computer With Merchant Account Setup

COMPLETE CREDIT CARD PROCESSING SYSTEMS FOR YOUR BUSINESS=2E INTERNE= T - HOME BASED - MAIL ORDER - PHONE ORDER

Do you accept credit cards? Your competition does!

Everyone Approved - Credit Problems OK!
Approval in less than 24 hours!
Increase your sales by 300%
Start Accepting Credit Cards on your website!
Free Information, No Risk, 100% confidential=2E
Your name and information will not be sold to thrid parties!
Home Businesses OK! Phone/Mail Order OK!
No Application Fee, No Setup Fee!
Close More Impulse Sales!

Everyone Approved!

Good Credit or Bad! To= apply today, please fill out the express form below=2E It contains all the information we need to get your account approved=2E For a= rea's that do not apply to you please put "n/a" in the box=2E

Upon receipt, we'll fax you with all of the all Bank Card Application documents necessary to establish your Merchant Account=2E Once returned we= can have your account approved within 24 hours=2E

Service	Industry Standard	US
Site Inspection	$50 - $75	FREE
Shipping	$50 - $75	FREE
Warranty	$10 Per Month=	FREE
Sales Receipts	$10 - $50&nbs= p;	FREE
Fraud Screening	$=2E50 - $1=2E00 Per Transaction	FREE
Amex Set Up	$50 - $75	FREE
24 Hour Help Line	$10 Month	FREE
Security Bond	$5000- $10,00= 0 Or More	NONE

This is a No Obligation Qualification Form and is your first step to accepting credit cards=2E By filling out this form you will= "not enter" in to any obligations o= r contracts with us=2E We will use it to determine the best p= rogram to offer you based on the information you provide=2E You will be c= ontacted by one of our representatives within 1-2 business days to go over = the rest of your account set up=2E

<= font color=3D"#cc0000">Note: All Information Provided To Us Will Remain= 100% Confidential !!

Apply Free With No Risk!

Pleas= e fill out the express application form completely=2E
Incomplete information m= ay prevent us from properly processing your application=2E

Your Full Emai= l Address:
be sure to use your full address (i= =2Ee=2E user@domain=2Ecom)

Your Name:

Business Name:=

Business Phone= Number:

Home Phone Num= ber:

Type of Busine= ss:

	Retail Business
	Mail Order Business
	Internet Based Busines= s

Personal Credi= t Rating:

	Excellent
	Good
	Fair
	Poor

How Soon Would= You Like a Merchant Account?

Your info= rmation is confidential, it will not be sold or used for any other purpose,= and you are under no obligation=2E Your information will be used solely for the purpose of evaluating= your business or website for a merchant account so that you may begin acce= pting credit card payments=2E

List Removal/OPT-OUT Option
Click Herem ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0-- ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0-- From saveontape2001@yahoo.com Fri May 11 19:40:01 2001 Received: from sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com ([171.69.24.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA22910 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 19:40:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com [171.69.11.130]) by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id f4BNCHd12412 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 16:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy2.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4BNCRO01332 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 16:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tot-wg.proxy.aol.com (tot-wg.proxy.aol.com [205.188.196.1]) by proxy2.cisco.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4BN8C621125 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 16:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tot-wg.proxy.aol.com id TAA0000004060; Fri, 11 May 2001 19:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 19:07:26 -0400 (EDT) From: "TigerTape, Inc." To: Message-Id: <419.437022.79789444saveontape2001@yahoo.com> Subject: Save on Shipping Tape...Stretch Film...Bubble Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com id f4BNCHd12412 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id TAA22910 ATTN: PURCHASING CALL: 1-800-766-0376 We are master distributors of a complete line of packaging tapes. Our marketing strategy is to sell our products directly to the end user of shipping tapes. We also offer industrial tapes such as duct, electrical, filament, teflon, stationery tapes, poly strapping tapes, custom printed tapes etc., as well as hard to find specialty tapes. The tape we are offering below is 1.9 mils. thick, and has an acrylic adhesive that works well in all temperature ranges. This tape exceeds postal requirements and works well sealing boxes with contents weighing up to 200 pounds. Let us give you a qoute on stretch film/pallet wrap ….. we operate on a very low margin of profit so TigerTape is able to offer YOU the customer, the very best prices available ! 2" X 110 yard carton sealing tape $ .99 per roll Clear or Brown/ 36 rolls per case--- Stretch Film (Pallet Wrap) Savings/ Call for Pricing ¾" X 60 yard Nylon filament strapping tape $ .99 per roll 48 rolls per case 3" X 700 foot 120 gauge Stretch Film $2.49 per roll 18 rolls per case >>> COMPLETE LINE OF RAINWEAR…..RAINSUITS,PONCHOS,JACKETS,RAINCOATS <<< FREIGHT PAID on 3 cases ANYWHERE in the Continental U.S. CALL FOR PALLET PRICING Contact us at: 1 - 800 - 766 - 0376 Lee Warren TigerTape, Inc If you wish to be removed from our list, please respond with "REMOVE" typed in your subject line. We always honor all removal requests.... Thank you for your time. From bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Tue May 15 16:48:06 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA06585 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 16:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA24578; Tue, 15 May 2001 16:47:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA24546 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 16:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [192.11.222.161]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA06575 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 16:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.1/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id f4FKli208844 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 16:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.1/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id f4FKlhG08812 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 16:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 22:47:42 +0200 Message-ID: <2413FED0DFE6D111B3F90008C7FA61FB0C4EF1F2@nl0006exch002u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: BridgeMIB , Les Bell Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:47:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org According to my email logs, nobody has ever reacted to this. Either I am no longer subscribed, or else I wonder: What does this mean? Does the WG want me to shut down the WG and assume that whatever documents we have are good enuf (at Proposed Std)? How about a MIB for the new technologies as described in the 1st para below? > ---------- > From: Les Bell[SMTP:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 6:44 PM > To: bridge-mib@ietf.org > Subject: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG > > > > Hi folks, > > The IEEE 802.1 working group is in the final stages of approval for a > number of > proposed new standards. 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w are extensions > to the > 802.1D and 802.1Q standards that we are all familiar with, and manage > through > the MIBs in RFC 1493, RFC 1525 and RFC 2674. > > I think that these standards have reached the stage where it is > appropriate to > develop a standard MIB, or MIBs, to manage the new features. The extent > of the > new features is much less dramatic than the last set of features we did > for > VLANs, Priorities, and Multicast Filtering, in RFC 2674. > > We also need to progress the current MIBs, which includes translating RFC > 1493 > and RFC 1525 to SMIv2 format and determing the current level of > implementation > support for them, and also for RFC 2674. > > The first thing I need to do, as the new WG chair, is to determine if > there is > sufficient interest in supporting and helping to develop this work. If > there is > enough interest, we can begin work on the new MIBs and book timeslots at > upcoming IETF meetings to discuss it. We will not have enough work > prepared for > the Minnesota meeting in March, so I hope to get an I-D ready to discuss > at the > August meeting, in London. I am particularly keen to hear from anyone who > can > help with contributions and act as Editor(s) for the proposed new MIB(s). > > > The proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG is at the end of this email. > > Thanks, > Les Bell (Bridge MIB WG chair) > > -------- > > Status: Proposed Recharter (with new WG chair) > > Bridge MIB (bridge) > > Last Modified: 18-Feb-01 > > Chair(s): > > Les Bell > > Operations and Management Area Director(s): > > Randy Bush > Bert Wijnen > > Operations and Management Area Advisor: > > Bert Wijnen > > Mailing Lists: > > General Discussion: bridge-mib@ietf.org > To Subscribe: bridge-mib-request@ietf.org > In Body: subscribe your_email_address > Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/bridge/ > > Description of Working Group: > > The Bridge MIB Working Group is chartered to define a set of > managed objects that instrument devices that conform to the > IEEE 802.1 standards for MAC-layer bridges. > > This set of objects should be largely compliant with (and even > draw from) those objects defined within each of the IEEE 802.1 > standards, although there is no requirement that any specific > object be present or absent. > > The set of objects should not duplicate, nor conflict with any MIB > object definitions defined by the IEEE 802.1 standards themselves. > > The MIB object definitions produced will be for use by SNMP and > will be consistent with other SNMP objects, standards, and > conventions. > > Goals and Milestones: > > Done Publish initial proposal. > > Done Submit an Internet-Draft. > > Done Submit draft for RFC publication. > > Done Publish a draft SNMP MIB that instruments functions > specific to source routed bridges as Internet-Draft. > > Done Publish a draft revision to RFC 1286 that reflects > implementation experience and the result of > alignments with IEEE work as an Internet-Draft. > > Done Submit draft MIB for source routing bridge functions > to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > Done Submit a new MIB document with support for recently > developed 802.1p and 802.1Q specifications to the > IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > Jul 01 Submit new I-D for RFC 1493 in SMIv2 format. > > Jul 01 Submit new I-D for RFC 1525 in SMIv2 format. > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 1493 and the SMIv2 version > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard. > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 1525 and the SMIv2 version > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard. > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 2674 and > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > Proposed or can be elevated to Draft Standard. > > Aug 01 Submit an Internet-Draft (or drafts) with MIB > support for extensions to the Bridge standards > defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w. > > Sep 01 Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1493 to IESG for > consideration as Full Standard. > > Sep 01 Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1523 to IESG for > consideration as Full Standard. > > Sep 01 Submit RFC 2674 (or new I-D if clarifications had to > be made) to IESG for consideration as Draft Standard. > > Dec 01 Revise the Internet-Draft(s) with MIB support for extensions > to the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v > and 802.1w. > > Mar 02 Submit completed draft(s) with MIB support for extensions to > the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and > 802.1w to the IESG, for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > No Current Internet-Drafts > > > Request For Comments: > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges (RFC 1493) (74493 bytes) > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges (RFC 1525) > (38100 bytes) > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, > Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions (RFC 2674) (159971 bytes) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge-mib mailing list > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Thu May 17 14:36:23 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA24396 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:36:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15737; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:35:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15707 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [192.11.222.161]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA24332 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.1/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id f4HHio428197 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.1/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id f4HHinj28183 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 17 May 2001 19:44:49 +0200 Message-ID: <2413FED0DFE6D111B3F90008C7FA61FB0C5B0103@nl0006exch002u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: BridgeMIB Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 19:44:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Thanks John... these type of postings I want to see more... so who is next? Bert > ---------- > From: John Flick[SMTP:johnf@rose.hp.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 12:20 AM > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: BridgeMIB; Les Bell > Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG > > Bert, > > I am interested in seeing this working group move forward (in fact, I > tried prodding Keith at the Pgh IETF to talk to you about > re-chartering then). I definitely would like to see 1493 progress > to full standard - it is VERY widely implemented and deployed and > should have gone to full standard long ago. Looking at advancing > 2674 is probably also appropriate at this time. I would suspect that > there will be alot less interest in advancing 1525 - who builds > source route bridges anymore?? > > As for new work, we already have at least partial implementations > of 802.1u, 802.1v, and 802.1w, with enterprise MIBs we could > contribute. I believe Andrew Smith also posted a proposal last > year for a document mapping the Diffserv MIB to bridges for managing > QOS in bridges that we may want to take a look at. > > I believe I would be able to volunteer to help with editing if > need be. > > John > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > According to my email logs, nobody has ever reacted to this. > > Either I am no longer subscribed, or else I wonder: > > > > What does this mean? > > > > Does the WG want me to shut down the WG and assume that > > whatever documents we have are good enuf (at Proposed Std)? > > > > How about a MIB for the new technologies as described in the > > 1st para below? > > > > > ---------- > > > From: Les Bell[SMTP:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 6:44 PM > > > To: bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > Subject: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > The IEEE 802.1 working group is in the final stages of approval for a > > > number of > > > proposed new standards. 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w are > extensions > > > to the > > > 802.1D and 802.1Q standards that we are all familiar with, and manage > > > through > > > the MIBs in RFC 1493, RFC 1525 and RFC 2674. > > > > > > I think that these standards have reached the stage where it is > > > appropriate to > > > develop a standard MIB, or MIBs, to manage the new features. The > extent > > > of the > > > new features is much less dramatic than the last set of features we > did > > > for > > > VLANs, Priorities, and Multicast Filtering, in RFC 2674. > > > > > > We also need to progress the current MIBs, which includes translating > RFC > > > 1493 > > > and RFC 1525 to SMIv2 format and determing the current level of > > > implementation > > > support for them, and also for RFC 2674. > > > > > > The first thing I need to do, as the new WG chair, is to determine if > > > there is > > > sufficient interest in supporting and helping to develop this work. > If > > > there is > > > enough interest, we can begin work on the new MIBs and book timeslots > at > > > upcoming IETF meetings to discuss it. We will not have enough work > > > prepared for > > > the Minnesota meeting in March, so I hope to get an I-D ready to > discuss > > > at the > > > August meeting, in London. I am particularly keen to hear from anyone > who > > > can > > > help with contributions and act as Editor(s) for the proposed new > MIB(s). > > > > > > > > > The proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG is at the end of this > email. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Les Bell (Bridge MIB WG chair) > > > > > > -------- > > > > > > Status: Proposed Recharter (with new WG chair) > > > > > > Bridge MIB (bridge) > > > > > > Last Modified: 18-Feb-01 > > > > > > Chair(s): > > > > > > Les Bell > > > > > > Operations and Management Area Director(s): > > > > > > Randy Bush > > > Bert Wijnen > > > > > > Operations and Management Area Advisor: > > > > > > Bert Wijnen > > > > > > Mailing Lists: > > > > > > General Discussion: bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > To Subscribe: bridge-mib-request@ietf.org > > > In Body: subscribe your_email_address > > > Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/bridge/ > > > > > > Description of Working Group: > > > > > > The Bridge MIB Working Group is chartered to define a set of > > > managed objects that instrument devices that conform to the > > > IEEE 802.1 standards for MAC-layer bridges. > > > > > > This set of objects should be largely compliant with (and even > > > draw from) those objects defined within each of the IEEE 802.1 > > > standards, although there is no requirement that any specific > > > object be present or absent. > > > > > > The set of objects should not duplicate, nor conflict with any MIB > > > object definitions defined by the IEEE 802.1 standards themselves. > > > > > > The MIB object definitions produced will be for use by SNMP and > > > will be consistent with other SNMP objects, standards, and > > > conventions. > > > > > > Goals and Milestones: > > > > > > Done Publish initial proposal. > > > > > > Done Submit an Internet-Draft. > > > > > > Done Submit draft for RFC publication. > > > > > > Done Publish a draft SNMP MIB that instruments functions > > > specific to source routed bridges as Internet-Draft. > > > > > > Done Publish a draft revision to RFC 1286 that reflects > > > implementation experience and the result of > > > alignments with IEEE work as an Internet-Draft. > > > > > > Done Submit draft MIB for source routing bridge functions > > > to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > > > > > Done Submit a new MIB document with support for recently > > > developed 802.1p and 802.1Q specifications to the > > > IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > > > > > Jul 01 Submit new I-D for RFC 1493 in SMIv2 format. > > > > > > Jul 01 Submit new I-D for RFC 1525 in SMIv2 format. > > > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 1493 and the SMIv2 version > > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > > Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard. > > > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 1525 and the SMIv2 version > > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > > Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard. > > > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 2674 and > > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > > Proposed or can be elevated to Draft Standard. > > > > > > Aug 01 Submit an Internet-Draft (or drafts) with MIB > > > support for extensions to the Bridge standards > > > defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w. > > > > > > Sep 01 Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1493 to IESG for > > > consideration as Full Standard. > > > > > > Sep 01 Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1523 to IESG for > > > consideration as Full Standard. > > > > > > Sep 01 Submit RFC 2674 (or new I-D if clarifications had to > > > be made) to IESG for consideration as Draft Standard. > > > > > > Dec 01 Revise the Internet-Draft(s) with MIB support for > extensions > > > to the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v > > > and 802.1w. > > > > > > Mar 02 Submit completed draft(s) with MIB support for extensions > to > > > the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and > > > 802.1w to the IESG, for consideration as a Proposed > Standard. > > > > > > No Current Internet-Drafts > > > > > > > > > Request For Comments: > > > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges (RFC 1493) (74493 bytes) > > > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges (RFC 1525) > > > (38100 bytes) > > > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, > > > Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions (RFC 2674) (159971 > bytes) > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Bridge-mib mailing list > > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bridge-mib mailing list > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Thu May 17 15:25:39 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA25355 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:25:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA17089; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:03:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA17049 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ctron-dnm.ctron.com (firewall-user@[12.25.1.120]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA24939 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by ctron-dnm.ctron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21723; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cnc-exc1.ctron.com(134.141.77.96) by ctron-dnm.ctron.com via smap (4.1) id xma021636; Thu, 17 May 01 15:10:10 -0400 Received: by cnc-exc1.ctron.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:03:23 -0400 Message-ID: <59358A738F45D51186A30008C74CE250043D73@slc-exc1.ctron.com> From: "Ngai, Vivian" To: "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" , "'Les Bell'" , "'BridgeMIB'" Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:03:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0DF04.09D2BFE6" Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DF04.09D2BFE6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I emailed Les about volunteering a few months ago. He said he was targeting to have drafts for the MIBs submitted this June or July. I'm new to the IETF community so I was supposed to get more familiar with the process and start helping. But since then, I got quite busy and haven't heard anything from Les or the group. I'm still committed to helping but I certainly hope that more people can join. Do we still want to keep this target date then? I believe the first thing we need right now is the WG chair. =) Les, are you still around? > -----Original Message----- > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 11:45 AM > To: BridgeMIB > Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG > > > Thanks John... these type of postings I want to see more... > so who is next? > > Bert > > > ---------- > > From: John Flick[SMTP:johnf@rose.hp.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 12:20 AM > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Cc: BridgeMIB; Les Bell > > Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the > Bridge MIB WG > > > > Bert, > > > > I am interested in seeing this working group move forward > (in fact, I > > tried prodding Keith at the Pgh IETF to talk to you about > > re-chartering then). I definitely would like to see 1493 progress > > to full standard - it is VERY widely implemented and deployed and > > should have gone to full standard long ago. Looking at advancing > > 2674 is probably also appropriate at this time. I would > suspect that > > there will be alot less interest in advancing 1525 - who builds > > source route bridges anymore?? > > > > As for new work, we already have at least partial implementations > > of 802.1u, 802.1v, and 802.1w, with enterprise MIBs we could > > contribute. I believe Andrew Smith also posted a proposal last > > year for a document mapping the Diffserv MIB to bridges for managing > > QOS in bridges that we may want to take a look at. > > > > I believe I would be able to volunteer to help with editing if > > need be. > > > > John > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > > > According to my email logs, nobody has ever reacted to this. > > > Either I am no longer subscribed, or else I wonder: > > > > > > What does this mean? > > > > > > Does the WG want me to shut down the WG and assume that > > > whatever documents we have are good enuf (at Proposed Std)? > > > > > > How about a MIB for the new technologies as described in the > > > 1st para below? > > > > > > > ---------- > > > > From: Les Bell[SMTP:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 6:44 PM > > > > To: bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > > Subject: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the > Bridge MIB WG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > The IEEE 802.1 working group is in the final stages of > approval for a > > > > number of > > > > proposed new standards. 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w are > > extensions > > > > to the > > > > 802.1D and 802.1Q standards that we are all familiar > with, and manage > > > > through > > > > the MIBs in RFC 1493, RFC 1525 and RFC 2674. > > > > > > > > I think that these standards have reached the stage where it is > > > > appropriate to > > > > develop a standard MIB, or MIBs, to manage the new > features. The > > extent > > > > of the > > > > new features is much less dramatic than the last set of > features we > > did > > > > for > > > > VLANs, Priorities, and Multicast Filtering, in RFC 2674. > > > > > > > > We also need to progress the current MIBs, which > includes translating > > RFC > > > > 1493 > > > > and RFC 1525 to SMIv2 format and determing the current level of > > > > implementation > > > > support for them, and also for RFC 2674. > > > > > > > > The first thing I need to do, as the new WG chair, is > to determine if > > > > there is > > > > sufficient interest in supporting and helping to > develop this work. > > If > > > > there is > > > > enough interest, we can begin work on the new MIBs and > book timeslots > > at > > > > upcoming IETF meetings to discuss it. We will not have > enough work > > > > prepared for > > > > the Minnesota meeting in March, so I hope to get an I-D ready to > > discuss > > > > at the > > > > August meeting, in London. I am particularly keen to > hear from anyone > > who > > > > can > > > > help with contributions and act as Editor(s) for the > proposed new > > MIB(s). > > > > > > > > > > > > The proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG is at the > end of this > > email. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Les Bell (Bridge MIB WG chair) > > > > > > > > -------- > > > > > > > > Status: Proposed Recharter (with new WG chair) > > > > > > > > Bridge MIB (bridge) > > > > > > > > Last Modified: 18-Feb-01 > > > > > > > > Chair(s): > > > > > > > > Les Bell > > > > > > > > Operations and Management Area Director(s): > > > > > > > > Randy Bush > > > > Bert Wijnen > > > > > > > > Operations and Management Area Advisor: > > > > > > > > Bert Wijnen > > > > > > > > Mailing Lists: > > > > > > > > General Discussion: bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > > To Subscribe: bridge-mib-request@ietf.org > > > > In Body: subscribe your_email_address > > > > Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/bridge/ > > > > > > > > Description of Working Group: > > > > > > > > The Bridge MIB Working Group is chartered to define a set of > > > > managed objects that instrument devices that conform to the > > > > IEEE 802.1 standards for MAC-layer bridges. > > > > > > > > This set of objects should be largely compliant with (and even > > > > draw from) those objects defined within each of the IEEE 802.1 > > > > standards, although there is no requirement that any specific > > > > object be present or absent. > > > > > > > > The set of objects should not duplicate, nor conflict > with any MIB > > > > object definitions defined by the IEEE 802.1 standards > themselves. > > > > > > > > The MIB object definitions produced will be for use by SNMP and > > > > will be consistent with other SNMP objects, standards, and > > > > conventions. > > > > > > > > Goals and Milestones: > > > > > > > > Done Publish initial proposal. > > > > > > > > Done Submit an Internet-Draft. > > > > > > > > Done Submit draft for RFC publication. > > > > > > > > Done Publish a draft SNMP MIB that instruments functions > > > > specific to source routed bridges as Internet-Draft. > > > > > > > > Done Publish a draft revision to RFC 1286 that reflects > > > > implementation experience and the result of > > > > alignments with IEEE work as an Internet-Draft. > > > > > > > > Done Submit draft MIB for source routing bridge functions > > > > to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > > > > > > > Done Submit a new MIB document with support for recently > > > > developed 802.1p and 802.1Q specifications to the > > > > IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > > > > > > > Jul 01 Submit new I-D for RFC 1493 in SMIv2 format. > > > > > > > > Jul 01 Submit new I-D for RFC 1525 in SMIv2 format. > > > > > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 1493 and the SMIv2 version > > > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > > > Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard. > > > > > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 1525 and the SMIv2 version > > > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > > > Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard. > > > > > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 2674 and > > > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > > > Proposed or can be elevated to Draft Standard. > > > > > > > > Aug 01 Submit an Internet-Draft (or drafts) with MIB > > > > support for extensions to the Bridge standards > > > > defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w. > > > > > > > > Sep 01 Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1493 to IESG for > > > > consideration as Full Standard. > > > > > > > > Sep 01 Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1523 to IESG for > > > > consideration as Full Standard. > > > > > > > > Sep 01 Submit RFC 2674 (or new I-D if clarifications had to > > > > be made) to IESG for consideration as Draft > Standard. > > > > > > > > Dec 01 Revise the Internet-Draft(s) with MIB support for > > extensions > > > > to the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, > 802.1u, 802.1v > > > > and 802.1w. > > > > > > > > Mar 02 Submit completed draft(s) with MIB support > for extensions > > to > > > > the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, > 802.1u, 802.1v and > > > > 802.1w to the IESG, for consideration as a Proposed > > Standard. > > > > > > > > No Current Internet-Drafts > > > > > > > > > > > > Request For Comments: > > > > > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges (RFC 1493) > (74493 bytes) > > > > > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing > Bridges (RFC 1525) > > > > (38100 bytes) > > > > > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, > > > > Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions (RFC > 2674) (159971 > > bytes) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Bridge-mib mailing list > > > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Bridge-mib mailing list > > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge-mib mailing list > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DF04.09D2BFE6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB = WG

I emailed Les about volunteering a few months = ago. He said he was targeting to have drafts for the MIBs = submitted this June or July. I'm new to the IETF community so I = was supposed to get more familiar with the process and start = helping. But since then, I got quite busy and haven't heard = anything from Les or the group. I'm still committed to helping = but I certainly hope that more people can join. Do we still want = to keep this target date then?

I believe the first thing we need right now is the WG = chair. =3D) Les, are you still around?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]=
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: BridgeMIB
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter = for the Bridge MIB WG
>
>
> Thanks John... these type of postings I want to = see more...
> so who is next?
>
> Bert
>
> > ----------
> > From:       John = Flick[SMTP:johnf@rose.hp.com]
> > Sent:       = Thursday, May 17, 2001 12:20 AM
> > To: =         Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: =         BridgeMIB; Les Bell
> > Subject:    Re: [Bridge-mib] = Proposed re-charter for the
> Bridge MIB WG
> >
> > Bert,
> >
> > I am interested in seeing this working = group move forward
> (in fact, I
> > tried prodding Keith at the Pgh IETF to = talk to you about
> > re-chartering then). I definitely = would like to see 1493 progress
> > to full standard - it is VERY widely = implemented and deployed and
> > should have gone to full standard long = ago. Looking at advancing
> > 2674 is probably also appropriate at this = time. I would
> suspect that
> > there will be alot less interest in = advancing 1525 - who builds
> > source route bridges anymore??
> >
> > As for new work, we already have at least = partial implementations
> > of 802.1u, 802.1v, and 802.1w, with = enterprise MIBs we could
> > contribute. I believe Andrew Smith = also posted a proposal last
> > year for a document mapping the Diffserv = MIB to bridges for managing
> > QOS in bridges that we may want to take a = look at.
> >
> > I believe I would be able to volunteer to = help with editing if
> > need be.
> >
> > John
> >
> > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" = wrote:
> > >
> > > According to my email logs, nobody = has ever reacted to this.
> > > Either I am no longer subscribed, or = else I wonder:
> > >
> > >       = What does this mean?
> > >
> > > Does the WG want me to shut down the = WG and assume that
> > > whatever documents we have are good = enuf (at Proposed Std)?
> > >
> > > How about a MIB for the new = technologies as described in the
> > > 1st para below?
> > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > = From:         Les = Bell[SMTP:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com]
> > > > = Sent:         Monday, February = 19, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > > To:   = bridge-mib@ietf.org
> > > > = Subject:      [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter = for the
> Bridge MIB WG
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > The IEEE 802.1 working group is = in the final stages of
> approval for a
> > > > number of
> > > > proposed new standards. = 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w are
> > extensions
> > > > to the
> > > > 802.1D and 802.1Q standards that = we are all familiar
> with, and manage
> > > > through
> > > > the MIBs in RFC 1493, RFC 1525 = and RFC 2674.
> > > >
> > > > I think that these standards = have reached the stage where it is
> > > > appropriate to
> > > > develop a standard MIB, or MIBs, = to manage the new
> features. The
> > extent
> > > > of the
> > > > new features is much less = dramatic than the last set of
> features we
> > did
> > > > for
> > > > VLANs, Priorities, and Multicast = Filtering, in RFC 2674.
> > > >
> > > > We also need to progress the = current MIBs, which
> includes translating
> > RFC
> > > > 1493
> > > > and RFC 1525 to SMIv2 format and = determing the current level of
> > > > implementation
> > > > support for them, and also for = RFC 2674.
> > > >
> > > > The first thing I need to do, as = the new WG chair, is
> to determine if
> > > > there is
> > > > sufficient interest in = supporting and helping to
> develop this work.
> > If
> > > > there is
> > > > enough interest, we can begin = work on the new MIBs and
> book timeslots
> > at
> > > > upcoming IETF meetings to = discuss it. We will not have
> enough work
> > > > prepared for
> > > > the Minnesota meeting in March, = so I hope to get an I-D ready to
> > discuss
> > > > at the
> > > > August meeting, in London. = I am particularly keen to
> hear from anyone
> > who
> > > > can
> > > > help with contributions and act = as Editor(s) for the
> proposed new
> > MIB(s).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The proposed re-charter for the = Bridge MIB WG is at the
> end of this
> > email.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Les Bell (Bridge MIB WG = chair)
> > > >
> > > > --------
> > > >
> > > > Status: Proposed Recharter (with = new WG chair)
> > > >
> > > > Bridge MIB (bridge)
> > > >
> > > > Last Modified: 18-Feb-01
> > > >
> > > > Chair(s):
> > > >
> > > > Les Bell = <Les_Bell@3Com.com>
> > > >
> > > > Operations and Management Area = Director(s):
> > > >
> > > > Randy Bush = <randy@psg.com>
> > > > Bert Wijnen = <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> > > >
> > > > Operations and Management Area = Advisor:
> > > >
> > > > Bert Wijnen = <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> > > >
> > > > Mailing Lists:
> > > >
> > > > General Discussion: = bridge-mib@ietf.org
> > > > To = Subscribe:       = bridge-mib-request@ietf.org
> > > > In = Body:            = subscribe your_email_address
> > > > = Archive:          &nbs= p; ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/bridge/
> > > >
> > > > Description of Working = Group:
> > > >
> > > > The Bridge MIB Working Group is = chartered to define a set of
> > > > managed objects that instrument = devices that conform to the
> > > > IEEE 802.1 standards for = MAC-layer bridges.
> > > >
> > > > This set of objects should be = largely compliant with (and even
> > > > draw from) those objects defined = within each of the IEEE 802.1
> > > > standards, although there is no = requirement that any specific
> > > > object be present or = absent.
> > > >
> > > > The set of objects should not = duplicate, nor conflict
> with any MIB
> > > > object definitions defined by = the IEEE 802.1 standards
> themselves.
> > > >
> > > > The MIB object definitions = produced will be for use by SNMP and
> > > > will be consistent with other = SNMP objects, standards, and
> > > > conventions.
> > > >
> > > > Goals and Milestones:
> > > >
> > > > = Done       Publish initial = proposal.
> > > >
> > > > = Done       Submit an = Internet-Draft.
> > > >
> > > > = Done       Submit draft for RFC = publication.
> > > >
> > > > = Done       Publish a draft SNMP MIB that = instruments functions
> > > = >           &n= bsp; specific to source routed bridges as Internet-Draft.
> > > >
> > > > = Done       Publish a draft revision to = RFC 1286 that reflects
> > > = >           &n= bsp; implementation experience and the result of
> > > = >           &n= bsp; alignments with IEEE work as an Internet-Draft.
> > > >
> > > > = Done       Submit draft MIB for source = routing bridge functions
> > > = >           &n= bsp; to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.
> > > >
> > > > = Done       Submit a new MIB document with = support for recently
> > > = >           &n= bsp; developed 802.1p and 802.1Q specifications to the
> > > = >           &n= bsp; IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.
> > > >
> > > > Jul = 01     Submit new I-D for RFC 1493 in SMIv2 = format.
> > > >
> > > > Jul = 01     Submit new I-D for RFC 1525 in SMIv2 format.<= /FONT>
> > > >
> > > > Aug = 01     Evaluate status of RFC 1493 and the SMIv2 = version
> > > = >           &n= bsp; and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at
> > > = >           &n= bsp; Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard.
> > > >
> > > > Aug = 01     Evaluate status of RFC 1525 and the SMIv2 = version
> > > = >           &n= bsp; and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at
> > > = >           &n= bsp; Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard.
> > > >
> > > > Aug = 01     Evaluate status of RFC 2674 and
> > > = >           &n= bsp; and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at
> > > = >           &n= bsp; Proposed or can be elevated to Draft Standard.
> > > >
> > > > Aug = 01     Submit an Internet-Draft (or drafts) with = MIB
> > > = >           &n= bsp; support for extensions to the Bridge standards
> > > = >           &n= bsp; defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w.
> > > >
> > > > Sep = 01     Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1493 to IESG = for
> > > = >           &n= bsp; consideration as Full Standard.
> > > >
> > > > Sep = 01     Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1523 to IESG = for
> > > = >           &n= bsp; consideration as Full Standard.
> > > >
> > > > Sep = 01     Submit RFC 2674 (or new I-D if = clarifications had to
> > > = >           &n= bsp; be made) to IESG for consideration as Draft
> Standard.
> > > >
> > > > Dec = 01     Revise the Internet-Draft(s) with MIB = support for
> > extensions
> > > = >           &n= bsp; to the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t,
> 802.1u, 802.1v
> > > = >           &n= bsp; and 802.1w.
> > > >
> > > > Mar = 02     Submit completed draft(s) with MIB support =
> for extensions
> > to
> > > = >           &n= bsp; the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t,
> 802.1u, 802.1v and
> > > = >           &n= bsp; 802.1w to the IESG, for consideration as a Proposed
> > Standard.
> > > >
> > > > No Current = Internet-Drafts
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Request For Comments:
> > > >
> > > > Definitions of Managed Objects = for Bridges (RFC 1493)
> (74493 bytes)
> > > >
> > > > Definitions of Managed Objects = for Source Routing
> Bridges (RFC 1525)
> > > > (38100 bytes)
> > > >
> > > > Definitions of Managed Objects = for Bridges with Traffic Classes,
> > > > Multicast Filtering and Virtual = LAN Extensions (RFC
> 2674) (159971
> > bytes)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > = _______________________________________________
> > > > Bridge-mib mailing list
> > > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org
> > > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> > > >
> > >
> > > = _______________________________________________
> > > Bridge-mib mailing list
> > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org
> > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
> >
>
> = _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> Bridge-mib@ietf.org
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DF04.09D2BFE6-- _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Thu May 17 15:40:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA25686 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA18281; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23314 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:20:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from atlrel1.hp.com (atlrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA20174 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nike.rose.hp.com (nike.rose.hp.com [15.29.16.151]) by atlrel1.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A81AC38; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:20:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rose.hp.com (ros54018fli [15.29.17.171]) by nike.rose.hp.com with ESMTP (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.8.6 SMKit7.02) id PAA28108; Wed, 16 May 2001 15:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B02FD11.E538E563@rose.hp.com> Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:20:01 -0700 From: John Flick X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Cc: BridgeMIB , Les Bell Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG References: <2413FED0DFE6D111B3F90008C7FA61FB0C4EF1F2@nl0006exch002u.nl.lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bert, I am interested in seeing this working group move forward (in fact, I tried prodding Keith at the Pgh IETF to talk to you about re-chartering then). I definitely would like to see 1493 progress to full standard - it is VERY widely implemented and deployed and should have gone to full standard long ago. Looking at advancing 2674 is probably also appropriate at this time. I would suspect that there will be alot less interest in advancing 1525 - who builds source route bridges anymore?? As for new work, we already have at least partial implementations of 802.1u, 802.1v, and 802.1w, with enterprise MIBs we could contribute. I believe Andrew Smith also posted a proposal last year for a document mapping the Diffserv MIB to bridges for managing QOS in bridges that we may want to take a look at. I believe I would be able to volunteer to help with editing if need be. John "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > According to my email logs, nobody has ever reacted to this. > Either I am no longer subscribed, or else I wonder: > > What does this mean? > > Does the WG want me to shut down the WG and assume that > whatever documents we have are good enuf (at Proposed Std)? > > How about a MIB for the new technologies as described in the > 1st para below? > > > ---------- > > From: Les Bell[SMTP:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 6:44 PM > > To: bridge-mib@ietf.org > > Subject: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > The IEEE 802.1 working group is in the final stages of approval for a > > number of > > proposed new standards. 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w are extensions > > to the > > 802.1D and 802.1Q standards that we are all familiar with, and manage > > through > > the MIBs in RFC 1493, RFC 1525 and RFC 2674. > > > > I think that these standards have reached the stage where it is > > appropriate to > > develop a standard MIB, or MIBs, to manage the new features. The extent > > of the > > new features is much less dramatic than the last set of features we did > > for > > VLANs, Priorities, and Multicast Filtering, in RFC 2674. > > > > We also need to progress the current MIBs, which includes translating RFC > > 1493 > > and RFC 1525 to SMIv2 format and determing the current level of > > implementation > > support for them, and also for RFC 2674. > > > > The first thing I need to do, as the new WG chair, is to determine if > > there is > > sufficient interest in supporting and helping to develop this work. If > > there is > > enough interest, we can begin work on the new MIBs and book timeslots at > > upcoming IETF meetings to discuss it. We will not have enough work > > prepared for > > the Minnesota meeting in March, so I hope to get an I-D ready to discuss > > at the > > August meeting, in London. I am particularly keen to hear from anyone who > > can > > help with contributions and act as Editor(s) for the proposed new MIB(s). > > > > > > The proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG is at the end of this email. > > > > Thanks, > > Les Bell (Bridge MIB WG chair) > > > > -------- > > > > Status: Proposed Recharter (with new WG chair) > > > > Bridge MIB (bridge) > > > > Last Modified: 18-Feb-01 > > > > Chair(s): > > > > Les Bell > > > > Operations and Management Area Director(s): > > > > Randy Bush > > Bert Wijnen > > > > Operations and Management Area Advisor: > > > > Bert Wijnen > > > > Mailing Lists: > > > > General Discussion: bridge-mib@ietf.org > > To Subscribe: bridge-mib-request@ietf.org > > In Body: subscribe your_email_address > > Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/bridge/ > > > > Description of Working Group: > > > > The Bridge MIB Working Group is chartered to define a set of > > managed objects that instrument devices that conform to the > > IEEE 802.1 standards for MAC-layer bridges. > > > > This set of objects should be largely compliant with (and even > > draw from) those objects defined within each of the IEEE 802.1 > > standards, although there is no requirement that any specific > > object be present or absent. > > > > The set of objects should not duplicate, nor conflict with any MIB > > object definitions defined by the IEEE 802.1 standards themselves. > > > > The MIB object definitions produced will be for use by SNMP and > > will be consistent with other SNMP objects, standards, and > > conventions. > > > > Goals and Milestones: > > > > Done Publish initial proposal. > > > > Done Submit an Internet-Draft. > > > > Done Submit draft for RFC publication. > > > > Done Publish a draft SNMP MIB that instruments functions > > specific to source routed bridges as Internet-Draft. > > > > Done Publish a draft revision to RFC 1286 that reflects > > implementation experience and the result of > > alignments with IEEE work as an Internet-Draft. > > > > Done Submit draft MIB for source routing bridge functions > > to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > > > Done Submit a new MIB document with support for recently > > developed 802.1p and 802.1Q specifications to the > > IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > > > Jul 01 Submit new I-D for RFC 1493 in SMIv2 format. > > > > Jul 01 Submit new I-D for RFC 1525 in SMIv2 format. > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 1493 and the SMIv2 version > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard. > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 1525 and the SMIv2 version > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard. > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 2674 and > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > Proposed or can be elevated to Draft Standard. > > > > Aug 01 Submit an Internet-Draft (or drafts) with MIB > > support for extensions to the Bridge standards > > defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w. > > > > Sep 01 Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1493 to IESG for > > consideration as Full Standard. > > > > Sep 01 Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1523 to IESG for > > consideration as Full Standard. > > > > Sep 01 Submit RFC 2674 (or new I-D if clarifications had to > > be made) to IESG for consideration as Draft Standard. > > > > Dec 01 Revise the Internet-Draft(s) with MIB support for extensions > > to the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v > > and 802.1w. > > > > Mar 02 Submit completed draft(s) with MIB support for extensions to > > the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and > > 802.1w to the IESG, for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > > > No Current Internet-Drafts > > > > > > Request For Comments: > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges (RFC 1493) (74493 bytes) > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges (RFC 1525) > > (38100 bytes) > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, > > Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions (RFC 2674) (159971 bytes) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bridge-mib mailing list > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge-mib mailing list > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Thu May 17 15:40:39 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA25685 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA18287; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA25450 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 17:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from creeper.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA07298 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 17:13:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by creeper.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4FLCrs20403 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 16:12:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id OAA13198 for Bridge-mib@ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <200105152111.OAA13198@dorothy.bmc.com> To: Bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by creeper.bmc.com id f4FLCrs20403 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id RAA25451 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by optimus.ietf.org id PAA18287 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id PAA25685 Hi - > Message-ID: <2413FED0DFE6D111B3F90008C7FA61FB0C4EF1F2@nl0006exch002u.nl.lucent.com> > From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" > To: BridgeMIB , Les Bell > Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG > Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:47:40 +0200 > > According to my email logs, nobody has ever reacted to this. > Either I am no longer subscribed, or else I wonder: > > What does this mean? ... In my case, it meant that I had no objections to the proposed charter. ------------------------------------------------------- Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn@bmc.com Voice: +1 408 546-1006 BMC Software, Inc. 1-3141 Fax: +1 408 965-0359 2141 North First Street http://www.bmc.com/ San José, California 95131 USA ------------------------------------------------------- My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Fri May 18 08:30:25 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA24426 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA27516; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA27474 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:30:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from iere.net.avaya.com (iere.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA24422 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from iere.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by iere.net.avaya.com (8.11.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f4ICTgR11214 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:29:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from itc-eml2.lannet.com (h149-49-38-52.avaya.com [149.49.38.52]) by iere.net.avaya.com (8.11.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f4ICTZM11096 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by itc-eml2.lannet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:29:38 +0200 Message-ID: <15F58915DF84D311AC7D0090279AA61444654C@itc-eml2.lannet.com> From: Dan Romascanu To: "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" , BridgeMIB Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:29:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Hi Bert, I am next. We are interested in having the Bridge MIB accommodating the extensions of IEEE 802.1. This should be also correlated with the new work within the Ethernet Repeater and Hub MIB WG, which does the MIB extensions for IEEE 802.3. I and maybe some other persons in my company intent to be active in supporting this work. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 7:45 PM > To: BridgeMIB > Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG > > > Thanks John... these type of postings I want to see more... > so who is next? > > Bert > > > ---------- > > From: John Flick[SMTP:johnf@rose.hp.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 12:20 AM > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Cc: BridgeMIB; Les Bell > > Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the > Bridge MIB WG > > > > Bert, > > > > I am interested in seeing this working group move forward > (in fact, I > > tried prodding Keith at the Pgh IETF to talk to you about > > re-chartering then). I definitely would like to see 1493 progress > > to full standard - it is VERY widely implemented and deployed and > > should have gone to full standard long ago. Looking at advancing > > 2674 is probably also appropriate at this time. I would > suspect that > > there will be alot less interest in advancing 1525 - who builds > > source route bridges anymore?? > > > > As for new work, we already have at least partial implementations > > of 802.1u, 802.1v, and 802.1w, with enterprise MIBs we could > > contribute. I believe Andrew Smith also posted a proposal last > > year for a document mapping the Diffserv MIB to bridges for managing > > QOS in bridges that we may want to take a look at. > > > > I believe I would be able to volunteer to help with editing if > > need be. > > > > John > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > > > According to my email logs, nobody has ever reacted to this. > > > Either I am no longer subscribed, or else I wonder: > > > > > > What does this mean? > > > > > > Does the WG want me to shut down the WG and assume that > > > whatever documents we have are good enuf (at Proposed Std)? > > > > > > How about a MIB for the new technologies as described in the > > > 1st para below? > > > > > > > ---------- > > > > From: Les Bell[SMTP:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 6:44 PM > > > > To: bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > > Subject: [Bridge-mib] Proposed re-charter for the > Bridge MIB WG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > The IEEE 802.1 working group is in the final stages of > approval for a > > > > number of > > > > proposed new standards. 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w are > > extensions > > > > to the > > > > 802.1D and 802.1Q standards that we are all familiar > with, and manage > > > > through > > > > the MIBs in RFC 1493, RFC 1525 and RFC 2674. > > > > > > > > I think that these standards have reached the stage where it is > > > > appropriate to > > > > develop a standard MIB, or MIBs, to manage the new > features. The > > extent > > > > of the > > > > new features is much less dramatic than the last set of > features we > > did > > > > for > > > > VLANs, Priorities, and Multicast Filtering, in RFC 2674. > > > > > > > > We also need to progress the current MIBs, which > includes translating > > RFC > > > > 1493 > > > > and RFC 1525 to SMIv2 format and determing the current level of > > > > implementation > > > > support for them, and also for RFC 2674. > > > > > > > > The first thing I need to do, as the new WG chair, is > to determine if > > > > there is > > > > sufficient interest in supporting and helping to > develop this work. > > If > > > > there is > > > > enough interest, we can begin work on the new MIBs and > book timeslots > > at > > > > upcoming IETF meetings to discuss it. We will not have > enough work > > > > prepared for > > > > the Minnesota meeting in March, so I hope to get an I-D ready to > > discuss > > > > at the > > > > August meeting, in London. I am particularly keen to > hear from anyone > > who > > > > can > > > > help with contributions and act as Editor(s) for the > proposed new > > MIB(s). > > > > > > > > > > > > The proposed re-charter for the Bridge MIB WG is at the > end of this > > email. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Les Bell (Bridge MIB WG chair) > > > > > > > > -------- > > > > > > > > Status: Proposed Recharter (with new WG chair) > > > > > > > > Bridge MIB (bridge) > > > > > > > > Last Modified: 18-Feb-01 > > > > > > > > Chair(s): > > > > > > > > Les Bell > > > > > > > > Operations and Management Area Director(s): > > > > > > > > Randy Bush > > > > Bert Wijnen > > > > > > > > Operations and Management Area Advisor: > > > > > > > > Bert Wijnen > > > > > > > > Mailing Lists: > > > > > > > > General Discussion: bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > > To Subscribe: bridge-mib-request@ietf.org > > > > In Body: subscribe your_email_address > > > > Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/bridge/ > > > > > > > > Description of Working Group: > > > > > > > > The Bridge MIB Working Group is chartered to define a set of > > > > managed objects that instrument devices that conform to the > > > > IEEE 802.1 standards for MAC-layer bridges. > > > > > > > > This set of objects should be largely compliant with (and even > > > > draw from) those objects defined within each of the IEEE 802.1 > > > > standards, although there is no requirement that any specific > > > > object be present or absent. > > > > > > > > The set of objects should not duplicate, nor conflict > with any MIB > > > > object definitions defined by the IEEE 802.1 standards > themselves. > > > > > > > > The MIB object definitions produced will be for use by SNMP and > > > > will be consistent with other SNMP objects, standards, and > > > > conventions. > > > > > > > > Goals and Milestones: > > > > > > > > Done Publish initial proposal. > > > > > > > > Done Submit an Internet-Draft. > > > > > > > > Done Submit draft for RFC publication. > > > > > > > > Done Publish a draft SNMP MIB that instruments functions > > > > specific to source routed bridges as Internet-Draft. > > > > > > > > Done Publish a draft revision to RFC 1286 that reflects > > > > implementation experience and the result of > > > > alignments with IEEE work as an Internet-Draft. > > > > > > > > Done Submit draft MIB for source routing bridge functions > > > > to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > > > > > > > Done Submit a new MIB document with support for recently > > > > developed 802.1p and 802.1Q specifications to the > > > > IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > > > > > > > > Jul 01 Submit new I-D for RFC 1493 in SMIv2 format. > > > > > > > > Jul 01 Submit new I-D for RFC 1525 in SMIv2 format. > > > > > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 1493 and the SMIv2 version > > > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > > > Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard. > > > > > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 1525 and the SMIv2 version > > > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > > > Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard. > > > > > > > > Aug 01 Evaluate status of RFC 2674 and > > > > and get WG consensus if it should be recycled at > > > > Proposed or can be elevated to Draft Standard. > > > > > > > > Aug 01 Submit an Internet-Draft (or drafts) with MIB > > > > support for extensions to the Bridge standards > > > > defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w. > > > > > > > > Sep 01 Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1493 to IESG for > > > > consideration as Full Standard. > > > > > > > > Sep 01 Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1523 to IESG for > > > > consideration as Full Standard. > > > > > > > > Sep 01 Submit RFC 2674 (or new I-D if clarifications had to > > > > be made) to IESG for consideration as Draft > Standard. > > > > > > > > Dec 01 Revise the Internet-Draft(s) with MIB support for > > extensions > > > > to the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, > 802.1u, 802.1v > > > > and 802.1w. > > > > > > > > Mar 02 Submit completed draft(s) with MIB support > for extensions > > to > > > > the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, > 802.1u, 802.1v and > > > > 802.1w to the IESG, for consideration as a Proposed > > Standard. > > > > > > > > No Current Internet-Drafts > > > > > > > > > > > > Request For Comments: > > > > > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges (RFC 1493) > (74493 bytes) > > > > > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing > Bridges (RFC 1525) > > > > (38100 bytes) > > > > > > > > Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, > > > > Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions (RFC > 2674) (159971 > > bytes) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Bridge-mib mailing list > > > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Bridge-mib mailing list > > > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge-mib mailing list > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib