Hi Jeff,
Comments inline.
On Apr 17, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
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.
-sam
-- Jeff