Hi Randy, On Apr 17, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Randy Presuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. 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 > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
