RE: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Ok, good, cause I was surprised to see a -1 in an Unsigned32.

Now... if we do this, then this could still be used by the
framework pib. 
However, for the diffserv-mib it would mean they must 
deprecate a current object and create a new one (switching
from Unsigned to Integer32 causes a change on the wire!).

The solution presented earlier could be considered as a
bug fix and would not require the diffserv-MIB to
deprecate the existing object

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> Sent: dinsdag 21 januari 2003 11:24
> To: bwijnen@lucent.com
> Cc: rap@ops.ietf.org; diffserv@ietf.org
> Subject: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny
> 
> 
> 
> I changed the subject line and fixed the proposed TC. So here is where
> I think we are. I have also reduced the CC list and I have added the
> diffserv mailing list since diffserv folks should be in the loop I
> think.
> 
>   FlowId TECTUAL-CONVENTION
>       DISPLAY-HINT "d"
>       STATUS       current
>       DESCRIPTION 
> 	"The flow identifier in an IPv6 header that may be used to
> 	 discriminate traffic flows."
>       REFERENCE
> 	"RFC 2460"
>       SYNTAX       Integer32 (0..1048575)
> 
>   FlowIdOrAny TECTUAL-CONVENTION
>       DISPLAY-HINT "d"
>       STATUS       current
>       DESCRIPTION 
> 	"The flow identifier in an IPv6 header that may be used to
> 	 discriminate traffic flows. The value of -1 is used to
> 	 indicate a wildcard, i.e. any value."
>       REFERENCE
> 	"RFC 2460"
>       SYNTAX       Integer32 (-1 | 0..1048575)
> 
> Open issues:
> 
> - Is the flow identifier the same as the flow label? I guess so. If
>   this is true, then we should probably use the TC names FlowLabel
>   and FlowLableOrAny and also change the wordings in the description
>   clause.
> 
> - The name of the MIB modules which will contain these definitions.
> 
> - Since Fred kind of said that the diffServMultiFieldClfrFlowId
>   object should have had a wildcard, can we agree that this is 
>   actually a bug in RFC 3289 which will be fixed by using FlowIdOrAny
>   in the next revision of the DIFFSERV-MIB?
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder    
<http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>