Hi Randy,
On Apr 17, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Yes, that is what I wanted to clarify, when I sent my email, to find if there
is WG consensus to go with write-access objects, as this base MIB will have
implication on the other MIB in the pipeline?
We had quite a big thread on MPLS list on this very subject and wanted to avoid
the repeat.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg11598.html
cheers
-sam
Randy