Support. I think the draft is mature enough to move forward. Only a minor question: I found most of the objects' MAX-ACCESS were defined as "not-accessible", except for the swmEncapsIIPDstType, swmEncapsIIPDst and swmBGPNeighborTunnelType which were "read-only". Is there any special consideration that the access rights are so limited? Would it be harmful to make the other objects as "read-only"?
B.R. Bing > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:19 PM > To: Softwires WG > Cc: Yong Cui > Subject: [Softwires] Working group last call for > draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 > > Hi all, > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on > advancing the draft defining the Softwire Mesh MIB as a Standards Track > RFC. The authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues > raised until now on the document. The latest version of the draft is > available at > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 > > Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing > this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial > suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send in > their comments as well during the last call period. This last call will > conclude on June 2, 2013. > > Regards, > Suresh & Yong > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
