On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 09:30:01AM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote: > Yes, I'm ranting about the known-failings of the SMI, which no matter > how hard we try to move from it's still very very very important in the > IETF world as new changes and new MIBs are being written constantly. > But the failings of the SMI actually aren't the SMI at all, it's how we > let ourselves use the SMI in publications "don't change it at all, even > when it's safe to do so".
Yes, the SMIv2 is just fine with adding a column. Easy, nothing breaks. It is the procedures and requirements we created through all the years and with the best intentions that may make this one object addition a rather unattractive exercise paired with a fear that once we open up a document, we might end up with a rather large request for all sorts of changes and we would not know where to draw the line. The later can be dealt with by having restrictive words in a WG charter for such a MIB module update. The former can be dealt with by positive thinking; lets not spent time worrying about all the potential problems but instead see how we can make the processes work most efficient if we agree that such an update indeed makes sense. /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/> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
