Hi Adrian,
One comment inline.
On Apr 17, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for the review.
To pick out one of your points:
This MIB contains many writable objects, so the authors should
take note of the IESG statement on writable MIB modules:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html
I did not see this mentioned in the shepherd writeup. If the OPS Area
has not been consulted, I strongly suggest doing so during IETF Last
Call, e.g., starting with Benoit Claise (AD).
The OPS Directorate and the MIB Doctors will have been alerted to this
document
by the last call and we can expect their comments.
But this question was discussed between the AD and the authors, and the AD was
unlikely to agree to sponsor the document if he felt it went against the IESG
statement. Our discussion resulted in some reduction of writeable objects.
I think there are several points to consider:
1. This document had already been completed and publication requested (i.e.
shepherd write-up written) at the time of the IESG statement. It would be
unreasonable to make the statement retrospective.
2. There are already various implementations in equipment (not just management
stations) of proprietary modules approximating to this document and these
support write-access.
%sam - If this MIB allows write access, do you/WG anticipate, any extension to
the MIB should also provide write-access as well? For example:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib/ augments this base MIB
to support MPLS. It adds more confusion than solving the issue as base MIB
supports write-access, but augmented/ MIB extension doesn't.
As the BFD MIB authors were not supportive of write-access objects in the MIBs,
why to have them in the first place?
cheers
-sam
3. This is a low-level component protocol of the sort that is used on dumber
devices and that is an area where write-access is more common.
Cheers,
Adrian