Hi Juergen, On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 07:09:56PM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Based upon the WGLC comments, I have updated these two drafts. Because I > > believe that the changes are not particularly controversial (except for > the > > new reference to NETCONF and RESTCONF), I've published the updated > versions > > so that the WG can verify the changes at the same time as my co-authors. > > I suggest to take this out again: > > Additionally, on March 2, 2014, the IESG issued a statement about > Writeable MIB Modules which is expected to limit creation of future > writeable MIB modules. > > This is what the statement really says (despite its unfortunate > title, http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html): > > SNMP MIB modules creating and modifying configuration state should > only be produced by working groups in cases of clear utility and > consensus to use SNMP write operations for configuration, and in > consultation with the OPS ADs/MIB doctors. > > My understanding is that configuration here is meant in the OPS sense > and my understanding is that I2RS is about changing operations state > as understood in the OPS community. > I've also heard support for having it in. I think that what it says is accurate - that WGs will be asked to think about whether write operations are needed in MIBs going forward. Can you suggest a rewording that you'd be comfortable with? Alia > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
