A MIB specification serves as a contract between implementers and users. It is really a virtual database schema. When there is a MUST, a compliant implementer MUST ensure their implementation behaves as stated. When an operator retrieves a value from a compliance-claiming implementation, they expect the implementation to follow the specified behavior.
However, technology is a moving target and sometimes how an entity can be monitored/manages needs to change to meet reality. So while the standards might mandate a specific behavior, innovations in implementations and usages might lead to non-compliant changes. As compared to, say, a transport protocol, the "sender" of monitored values is the MIB implementation, and the receiver is the NMS/operator. Be conservative in what you send - the MIB "agent" implementer should follow the MIB specifications in determining what to send. Be liberal in what you receive - an NMS/operator should "trust but verify" - and read the release notes. David Harrington [email protected] +1-603-828-1401 > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benoit > Claise > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 6:55 AM > To: Ben Campbell; The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm- > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-opsawg- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg- > vmm-mib-03: (with COMMENT) > > On 23/06/2015 22:42, Ben Campbell wrote: > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-03: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I mean the following as a question, because it's something I've never > > thought about, but seems odd: Is it normal to have 2119 language in the > > description fields in a MIB definition? Who is that language intended > > for? > I've seen that before. > I don't think that's an issue. > > Regards, Benoit > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
