Hi - > From: "Sam K. Aldrin" <[email protected]> ... > 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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
