Hi Sam,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:11:15PM -0700, Sam K. Aldrin wrote:
%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?
As noted in earlier mailing list chatter, there is some support for
write access in existing implementations. Given the lack of
significant detail when pressed for the name of such an
implementation, I'm suspecting smaller vendor or internal
implementation. That's still sufficient to leave write available.
Given that one of the original contexts of asking if we could remove
write was whether IETF was being asked to provide such a thing for
MPLS-TP with related impact on your extension MIB and the answer was
"no", that shouldn't be the main criteria.
No. The context of my question is not related to MPLS-TP as such, but write-
access support in general.
I should have added 'clarification' in my earlier email.
My suspicion is that if we were to ship the base MIB with writeable
objects, we may be forced to consider similar things for the extension
MIB(s).
Both, bfd-mpls and mpls-TP MIB's are extensions to base MIBs, MPLS-TE and
BFD-MIB respectively, with write-access. Had to do write-access because of
the reason you've mentioned above, which is base MIB. It would be painful
to publish/support write-access MIB's when there is no clear interest. Hence
my clarification question.
This mentions three vendors wanting to implement MIB as writable.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg01382.html
And one more vendor voicing for writable.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg01397.html
I agree that defining & wording writable MIB is much more painful than all
read-only MIB. But above thread indicates the desire by multiple vendors to
implement writable BFD MIB. Therefore it does seem that there are interests,
and going forward with write-access will benefit the community. And with
*ReadOnlyCompliance defined, BFD MIB can also accommodate those implementing
them as just read-only.
-Nobo
-sam
-- Jeff