< draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-14.txt		draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15.txt >
	Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation T. Nadeau, Ed.		Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation T. Nadeau, Ed.
	Internet-Draft BT		Internet-Draft BT
	Intended status: Standards Track D. Zelig, Ed.		Intended status: Standards Track D. Zelig, Ed.
	Expires: July 12, 2008 Corrigent Systems		Expires: August 15, 2009 Oversi
	O. Nicklass, Ed.		O. Nicklass, Ed.
	Nokia Siemens Networks		RADVISION
	January 9, 2008		February 15, 2009
	Definitions of Textual Conventions for Pseudowires (PW) Management		Definitions of Textual Conventions for Pseudowires (PW) Management
	draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-14		draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
	aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on July 12, 2008.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, 2009.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).		Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
			document authors. All rights reserved.
			This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
			Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
			(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
			publication of this document. Please review these documents
			carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
			to this document.
			draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15 February 2009
			This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
			Contributions published or made publicly available before November
			10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
			material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
			modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
			Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
			controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
			be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
			works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process,
			except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it
			into languages other than English.
	Abstract		Abstract
	This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which		This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which
	contains Textual Conventions (TCs) to represent commonly-used		contains Textual Conventions (TCs) to represent commonly-used
	Pseudowire (PW) management information. The intent is that these TCs		Pseudowire (PW) management information. The intent is that these TCs
	will be imported and used in PW-related MIB modules that would		will be imported and used in PW-related MIB modules that would
	otherwise define their own representations.		otherwise define their own representations.
			Conventions used in this document
			The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
			"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
			document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12		Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
			draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15 February 2009
	This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)		This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
	for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.		for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
	In particular, it defines Textual Conventions used for Pseudowire		In particular, it defines Textual Conventions used for Pseudowire
	(PW) technology and PWE3 MIB modules.		(PW) technology and PWE3 MIB modules.
	Comments should be made directly to the PWE3 mailing list at		Comments should be made directly to the PWE3 mailing list at
	pwe3@ietf.org.		pwe3@ietf.org.
	2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework		2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework
	skipping to change at page 3, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 29 ¶
	Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed		Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
	the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally		the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally
	accessed through Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects		accessed through Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects
	in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure		in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure
	of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module		of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module
	that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC		that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC
	2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580		2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580
	[RFC2580].		[RFC2580].
	3. Conventions		3. Object Definitions
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		PW-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [BCP14].
	This document adopts the definitions, acronyms and mechanisms		IMPORTS
	described in [RFC3985]. Unless otherwise stated, the mechanisms of		MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, mib-2
	[RFC3985] apply and will not be described again here.		FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578]
	4. Object Definitions		TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
			FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- [RFC2579]
	PW-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN		pwTcStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
			LAST-UPDATED "200902151200Z" -- 15 February 2009 12:00:00 GMT
			ORGANIZATION "Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) Working
			Group"
			CONTACT-INFO
			" Thomas D. Nadeau
			Email: tom.nadeau@bt.com
	IMPORTS		David Zelig
	MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, mib-2		Email: davidz@oversi.com
	FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578]		draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15 February 2009
	TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		Orly Nicklass
	FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- [RFC2579]		Email: orlyn@radvision.com
	pwTcStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY		The PWE3 Working Group (email distribution pwe3@ietf.org,
	LAST-UPDATED "200712091200Z" -- 9 December 2007 12:00:00 GMT		http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pwe3-charter.html)
	ORGANIZATION "Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) Working		"
	Group"
	CONTACT-INFO
	" Thomas D. Nadeau
	Email: thomas.nadeau@bt.com
	David Zelig		DESCRIPTION
	Email: davidz@corrigent.com		"This MIB module defines TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS
			for concepts used in Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge
			networks.
	Orly Nicklass		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2009). The
	Email: orly.nicklass@SeabridgeNetworks.com		initial version of this MIB module as published
			in RFC YYYY. For full legal notices see the RFC
			itself or see:
			http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html
	The PWE3 Working Group (email distribution pwe3@ietf.org,		-- RFC Editor: Please replace YYYY with the RFC number and remove
	http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pwe3-charter.html)		-- this note.
	"		"
			-- Revision history.
	DESCRIPTION		REVISION "200902151200Z" -- 15 february 2009 12:00:00 GMT
	"This MIB module defines TEXTUAL CONVENTIONs		DESCRIPTION
	for concepts used in Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge		"Original Version"
	networks.		::= { mib-2 XXXX }
			-- RFC Editor: please replace XXXX with IANA assigned value and
			-- delete this note.
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). The		PwGroupID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	initial version of this MIB module as published		DISPLAY-HINT "d"
	in RFC YYYY. For full legal notices see the RFC		STATUS current
	itself or see:		DESCRIPTION
	http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html		"An administrative identification for grouping a
			set of service-specific pseudowire services."
			SYNTAX Unsigned32
	-- RFC Editor: Please replace YYYY with the RFC number and remove		PwIDType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	-- this note.		DISPLAY-HINT "d"
	"		STATUS current
	-- Revision history.		DESCRIPTION
			"Pseudowire Identifier. Used to identify the PW
			(together with some other fields) in the signaling
			session."
			SYNTAX Unsigned32
	REVISION "200712091200Z" -- 9 December 2007 12:00:00 GMT		PwIndexType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	DESCRIPTION		draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15 February 2009
	"Original Version"
	::= { mib-2 XXXX }
	-- RFC Editor: please replace XXXX with IANA assigned value and
	-- delete this note.
	PwGroupID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		DISPLAY-HINT "d"
	DISPLAY-HINT "d"		STATUS current
	STATUS current		DESCRIPTION
	DESCRIPTION		"Pseudowire Index. A unique value, greater than zero,
	"An administrative identification for grouping a		for each locally-defined PW for indexing
	set of service-specific pseudowire services."		several MIB tables associated with the particular PW.
	SYNTAX Unsigned32		It is recommended that values are assigned contiguously
			starting from 1. The value for each PW MUST remain
			constant at least from one re-initialization
			to the next re-initialization."
			SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295)
	PwIDType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		PwIndexOrZeroType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	DISPLAY-HINT "d"		DISPLAY-HINT "d"
	STATUS current		STATUS current
	DESCRIPTION		DESCRIPTION
	"Pseudowire Identifier. Used to identify the PW		"This textual convention is an extension of the
	(together with some other fields) in the signaling		PwIndexType convention. The latter defines a greater-
	session."		than-zero value used to identify a Pseudowire
	SYNTAX Unsigned32		in the managed system. This extension permits the
			additional value of zero. The zero value is object-specific
			and MUST therefore be defined as part of the description of
			any object which uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of
			zero might include situations where Pseudowire was unknown,
			or when none or all Pseudowires need to be referenced."
			SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
	PwIndexType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		PwOperStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	DISPLAY-HINT "d"		STATUS current
	STATUS current		DESCRIPTION
	DESCRIPTION		"Indicates the operational status of the PW.
	"Pseudowire Index. A unique value, greater than zero,
	for each locally-defined PW for indexing
	several MIB tables associated with the particular PW.
	It is recommended that values are assigned contiguously
	starting from 1. The value for each PW MUST remain
	constant at least from one re-initialization
	to the next re-initialization."
	SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295)
	PwIndexOrZeroType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		- up(1): Ready to pass packets.
	DISPLAY-HINT "d"		- down(2): If PW signaling is not yet finished, or
	STATUS current		indications available at the service
	DESCRIPTION		level indicate that the PW is not
	"This textual convention is an extension of the		passing packets.
	PwIndexType convention. The latter defines a greater-		- testing(3): If AdminStatus at the PW level is set to
	than-zero value used to identify a Pseudowire		test.
	in the managed system. This extension permits the		- dormant(4): The PW is not in a condition to pass
	additional value of zero. The zero value is object-specific		packets, but is in a 'pending' state,
	and MUST therefore be defined as part of the description of		waiting for some external event.
	any object which uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of		- notPresent(5): Some component is missing to accomplish
	zero might include situations where Pseudowire was unknown,		the setup of the PW. It can be configuration
	or when none or all Pseudowires need to be referenced."		error, incomplete configuration or missing
	SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)		of H/W component.
			- lowerLayerDown(6):One or more of the lower-layer interfaces
			responsible for running the underlying PSN
	PwVlanCfg ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15 February 2009
	DISPLAY-HINT "d"
	STATUS current
	DESCRIPTION
	"VLAN configuration for Ethernet PW.
	Values between 0 and 4095 indicate the actual VLAN field
	value.
	A value of 4096 indicates that the object refers to
	untagged frames, i.e., frames without a 802.1Q field.
	A value of 4097 indicates that the object is not
	relevant."
	SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4097)
	PwOperStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		is not in OperStatus 'up' state."
	STATUS current		SYNTAX INTEGER {
	DESCRIPTION		up(1),
	"Indicates the operational status of the PW.		down(2),
			testing(3),
			dormant(4),
			notPresent(5),
			lowerLayerDown(6)
			}
	- up(1): Ready to pass packets.		PwAttachmentIdentifierType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	- down(2): If PW signaling is not yet finished, or		STATUS current
	indications available at the service		DESCRIPTION
	level indicate that the PW is not		"An octet string used in the generalized FEC element for
	passing packets.		identifying attachment forwarder and groups. A NULL
	- testing(3): If AdminStatus at the PW level is set to		identifier is of zero length.
	test.		"
	- dormant(4): The PW is not in a condition to pass		SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
	packets, but is in a 'pending' state,
	waiting for some external event.
	- notPresent(5): Some component is missing to accomplish
	the setup of the PW. It can be configuration
	error, incomplete configuration or missing
	of H/W component.
	- lowerLayerDown(6):One or more of the lower-layer interfaces
	responsible for running the underlying PSN
	is not in OperStatus 'up' state."
	SYNTAX INTEGER {
	up(1),
	down(2),
	testing(3),
	dormant(4),
	notPresent(5),
	lowerLayerDown(6)
	}
	PwAttachmentIdentifierType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		PwGenIdType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	STATUS current		STATUS current
	DESCRIPTION		DESCRIPTION
	"An octet string used in the generalized FEC element for		"Represents the AGI Type and AII Type in generalized FEC
	identifying attachment forwarder and groups. A NULL		signaling and configuration.
	identifier is of zero length.		"
	"		SYNTAX Unsigned32( 0..254 )
	SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
	PwGenIdType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		PwCwStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	STATUS current		STATUS current
	DESCRIPTION		DESCRIPTION
	"Represents the AGI Type and AII Type in generalized FEC		"Indicates the status of the control word (CW) negotiation
	signaling and configuration.		based on the local configuration and the indications received
	"		from the peer node.
	SYNTAX Unsigned32( 0..254 )
	PwCwStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		waitingForNextMsg(1) indicates that the node is waiting for
	STATUS current		another label mapping from the peer.
	DESCRIPTION
	"Indicates the status of the control word (CW) negotiation
	based on the local configuration and the indications received
	from the peer node.
	waitingForNextMsg(1) indicates that the node is waiting for		sentWrongBitErrorCode(2) indicates that the local node has
	another label mapping from the peer.		notified the peer about a mismatch in the C-bit.
	sentWrongBitErrorCode(2) indicates that the local node has		rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode(3) indicates that a withdraw
	notified the peer about a mismatch in the C-bit.		message has been received with the wrong C-bit error code.
	rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode(3) indicates that a withdraw		illegalReceivedBit(4) indicates a C-bit configuration with
	message has been received with the wrong C-bit error code.		the peer which is not compatible with the PW type.
	illegalReceivedBit(4) indicates a C-bit configuration with		cwPresent(5) indicates that the CW is present for this PW:
	the peer which is not compatible with the PW type.		If signaling is used - the C-bit is set and agreed between the
			draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15 February 2009
	cwPresent(5) indicates that the CW is present for this PW:		nodes, and for manually-configured PW the local configuration
	If signaling is used - the C-bit is set and agreed between the		requires the use of the CW.
	nodes, and for manually-configured PW the local configuration
	requires the use of the CW.
	cwNotPresent(6) indicates that the CW is not present for		cwNotPresent(6) indicates that the CW is not present for
	this PW: If signaling is used - the C-bit is reset and agreed		this PW: If signaling is used - the C-bit is reset and agreed
	between the nodes, and for manually-configured PW the local		between the nodes, and for manually-configured PW the local
	configuration requires that the CW not be used.		configuration requires that the CW not be used.
	notYetKnown(7) indicates that a label mapping has not yet		notYetKnown(7) indicates that a label mapping has not yet
	been received from the peer.		been received from the peer.
	"		"
	REFERENCE		REFERENCE
	"Martini, et al, 'Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using		"Martini, et al, 'Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using
	the Label Distribution Protocol', [RFC4447]."		the Label Distribution Protocol', [RFC4447]."
	SYNTAX INTEGER {		SYNTAX INTEGER {
	waitingForNextMsg (1),		waitingForNextMsg (1),
	sentWrongBitErrorCode (2),		sentWrongBitErrorCode (2),
	rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode (3),		rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode (3),
	illegalReceivedBit (4),		illegalReceivedBit (4),
	cwPresent (5),		cwPresent (5),
	cwNotPresent (6),		cwNotPresent (6),
	notYetKnown(7)		notYetKnown(7)
	}		}
	PwStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		PwStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	STATUS current		STATUS current
	DESCRIPTION		DESCRIPTION
	"Indicates the status of the PW and the interfaces affecting		"Indicates the status of the PW and the interfaces affecting
	this PW. If none of the bits are set, it indicates no faults		this PW. If none of the bits are set, it indicates no faults
	are reported.		are reported.
	"		"
	SYNTAX BITS {		SYNTAX BITS {
	pwNotForwarding (0),		pwNotForwarding (0),
	servicePwRxFault (1),		servicePwRxFault (1),
	servicePwTxFault (2),		servicePwTxFault (2),
	psnPwRxFault (3),		psnPwRxFault (3),
	psnPwTxFault (4)		psnPwTxFault (4)
	}		}
	PwFragSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		PwFragSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	DISPLAY-HINT "d"		DISPLAY-HINT "d"
	STATUS current		STATUS current
	DESCRIPTION		DESCRIPTION
	"If set to a value other than zero, it indicates the desired		"If set to a value other than zero, it indicates the desired
	fragmentation length in bytes. If set to zero,		fragmentation length in bytes. If set to zero,
	fragmentation is not desired for PSN bound packets.		fragmentation is not desired for PSN bound packets.
	"		"
	SYNTAX Unsigned32		draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15 February 2009
	PwFragStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		SYNTAX Unsigned32
	STATUS current
	DESCRIPTION
	"Indicates the status of the fragmentation/reassembly process
	based on local configuration and peer capability.
	noFrag(0) bit indicates that local configuration is for no		PwFragStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
	fragmentation.		STATUS current
			DESCRIPTION
			"Indicates the status of the fragmentation/reassembly process
			based on local configuration and peer capability.
	cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu(1) bit indicates the local node		noFrag(0) bit indicates that local configuration is for no
	is set to fragment, but the fragmentation size is greater		fragmentation.
	than the MTU available at the PSN between the nodes.
	Fragmentation is not done in this case.
	cfgFragButRemoteIncapable(2) bit indicates that the local		cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu(1) bit indicates the local node
	configuration indicates the desire for fragmentation but		is set to fragment, but the fragmentation size is greater
	the peer is not capable of reassembly.		than the MTU available at the PSN between the nodes.
			Fragmentation is not done in this case.
	remoteFragCapable(3) bit indicates that the remote node		cfgFragButRemoteIncapable(2) bit indicates that the local
	is capable to accept fragmented PDUs.		configuration indicates the desire for fragmentation but
			the peer is not capable of reassembly.
	fragEnabled(4) bit indicates that fragmentation will be used		remoteFragCapable(3) bit indicates that the remote node
	on this PW. Fragmentation can be used if the local node was		is capable to accept fragmented PDUs.
	configured for fragmentation, the peer has the capability
	to accept fragmented packets, and the CW is in use for this
	PW."
	REFERENCE		fragEnabled(4) bit indicates that fragmentation will be used
	"Malis, A. and M. Townsley, 'Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-		on this PW. Fragmentation can be used if the local node was
	Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly', [RFC4623]."		configured for fragmentation, the peer has the capability
	SYNTAX BITS {		to accept fragmented packets, and the CW is in use for this
	noFrag (0),		PW."
	cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu (1),
	cfgFragButRemoteIncapable (2),
	remoteFragCapable (3),
	fragEnabled (4)
	}
	PwCfgIndexOrzero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION		REFERENCE
	DISPLAY-HINT "d"		"Malis, A. and M. Townsley, 'Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
	STATUS current		Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly', [RFC4623]."
	DESCRIPTION		SYNTAX BITS {
	"Index in any of the relevant configuration tables for		noFrag (0),
	supplement information regarding configuration of the		cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu (1),
	specific technology. Value 0 implies no additional		cfgFragButRemoteIncapable (2),
	configuration information is applicable."		remoteFragCapable (3),
	SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)		fragEnabled (4)
	END		}
	5. Security Considerations		PwCfgIndexOrzero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
			DISPLAY-HINT "d"
			STATUS current
			DESCRIPTION
			"Index in any of the relevant configuration tables for
			supplement information regarding configuration of the
			specific technology. Value 0 implies no additional
			configuration information is applicable."
			draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15 February 2009
			SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
			END
			4. Security Considerations
	This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it		This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it
	defines a set of textual conventions that may be used by other PWE3		defines a set of textual conventions that may be used by other PWE3
	MIB modules to define management objects.		MIB modules to define management objects.
	Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB		Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB
	modules that define management objects. Therefore, this document has		modules that define management objects. Therefore, this document has
	no impact on the security of the Internet.		no impact on the security of the Internet.
	6. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned		The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
	OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:		OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:
	Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value		Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
	---------- -----------------------		---------- -----------------------
	pwTcStdMIB { mib-2 XXXX }		pwTcStdMIB { mib-2 XXXX }
	Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): The IANA is		Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): The IANA is
	requested to assign a value for "XXXX" under the 'mib-2' subtree and		requested to assign a value for "XXXX" under the 'mib-2' subtree and
	to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry. When the		to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry. When the
	assignment has been made, the RFC Editor is asked to replace "XXXX"		assignment has been made, the RFC Editor is asked to replace "XXXX"
	(here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value and to remove		(here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value and to remove
	this note.		this note.
	7. References		6. References
	7.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
	[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Keywords for Use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.		[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
	Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information		Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
	Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.		Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
	[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.		[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
			draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15 February 2009
	Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",		Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
	STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.		STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
	[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,		[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
	"Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,		"Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
	April 1999.		April 1999.
	[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.		[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
	Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label		Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
	Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.		Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
	[RFC4623] Malis, A. and M. Townsley, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-		[RFC4623] Malis, A. and M. Townsley, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
	Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly", RFC 4623,		Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly", RFC 4623,
	August 2006.		August 2006.
	7.2. Informative References		6.2. Informative References
	[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,		[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
	"Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-		"Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
	Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.		Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
	[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
	Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Thomas D. Nadeau (editor)		Thomas D. Nadeau (editor)
	BT		BT
	BT Centre		BT Centre
	81 Newgate Street		81 Newgate Street
	London EC1A 7AJ		London EC1A 7AJ
	United Kingdom		United Kingdom
			Email: tom.nadeau@bt.com
	Email: thomas.nadeau@bt.com
	David Zelig (editor)		David Zelig (editor)
	Corrigent Systems		Oversi Networks
	126, Yigal Alon St.		1 Rishon Letzion St.
	Tel Aviv,		Petah Tikva
	Israel		Israel
	Phone: +972 3 6945 273		Phone: +972 77 3337 750
	Email: davidz@corrigent.com		Email: davidz@oversi.com
	Orly Nicklass (editor)		Orly Nicklass (editor)
	Nokia Siemens Networks		RADVISION
	3 Hanagar st. Neve Ne'eman		24 Raul Wallenberg
	Hod-Hasharon,		Tel Aviv
	Israel		draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15 February 2009
	Phone: +972-9-7751290
	Email: orly.nicklass@SeabridgeNetworks.com
	Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
	This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
	contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
	retain all their rights.
	This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
	"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
	OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
	THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
	OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
	THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
	WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
	Intellectual Property
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
	pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
	might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
	made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
	on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
	found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
	assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
	attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
	such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
	specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
	http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
	The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any		Phone: +972 3 776 9444
	copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary		Email: orlyn@radvision.com
	rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
	this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
	ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
	Acknowledgment		Acknowledgment
	Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF		Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
	Administrative Support Activity (IASA).		Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
			This document was produced by the PWE3 Working Group.
End of changes. 68 change blocks.
	327 lines changed or deleted		300 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/