assigned issue 36.
> > Set 2: > > > > > >>1. Section 10.1.1 talks about "IP Forwarding Table MIB" > >> The revision of this MIB document (that you refer to) has a number > >> of deprecated and obsoleted objects. I think what you > want (intend) > >> to say is that an agent must implement those objects that are > >> required as per ipForwardFullCompliance or > ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance. > >> > >> I am also not sure that this is correct: > >> Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific > >> portions of this MIB be supported. > >> Did you mean "IPv4 or IPv6 specific portions" ? > > I think the intent was to say that if you implement IPv6 and as a > result also the forwarding table MIB, it does not follow that you also > have to implement all of IPv4. > > >> But maybe the sentence is not needed at all. The two MODULE-COMPLIANCEs > >> that I point you to above specify IP version neurtral objects! > > I'm glad to hear that its IP version neutral. > > So what happens if I create a new InetCidrRouteEntry and > set inetCidrRouteDestType to "ipv4" on a box that supports > only IPv6? > > What I would like to happen is that this would fail, and > doing so would not mean that the box violates 2096bis... > > >>2. Similar comments/issue with Sect 10.1.2 > >> I think you want to refer to CURRENT MODULE-COMPLIANCE, namely > >> ipMIBCompliance2. Pls check and make sure you be specific as to what > >> needs to be supported. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
