Hi -
From: "Sam K. Aldrin" <aldrin(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
...
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
...
In order to support new functionality, we are extending/augmenting existing
base
MIB and in addition some write-access objects as well. If we make those new
ones read-only objects, then only some objects or tables could be used with
write-access and these new objects (read-only) have to be configured
differently.
In other words, full functionality cannot be provided. This got nothing to do
with SMI.
Then what's the problem? If the WG has consensus to add functionality, and
that functionality logically requires a read-write MIB module of extension,
the IESG policy already allows for such cases.
Randy