Hi Randy, Inline for my comments. On Apr 17, 2014, at 7:47 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi - > >> From: "Sam K. Aldrin" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Apr 17, 2014 6:24 PM > ... >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17 > ... >> My only concern is with the new extension MIB's. >> If the base MIB (this MIB) has write access, >> future extension MIB's may be forced to support >> write-access. > > And how, exactly, does the fact that a base MIB module > permits write access force extension MIB modules to > require (or even permit) write access? > > It's perfectly reasonable SMI to define an AUGMENTS > table consisting entirely of read-only objects. True, you could add only read-only objects. But the point is, not with syntax or what could be added or augmented. 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. The point we are extending or re-using the base MIB is not to re-define new objects altogether and also to re-use the applications. Atleast that is what we have done in this case. Hope this clarifies. cheers -sam > > Randy _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
