Thanks, Adrian--that makes sense. Ben. On Oct 3, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for the review. > >> Minor issues: >> >> -- Section 7, first paragraph: "During the review of this document, It > emerged >> that there are different possible interpretations of [RFC5798]. The Authors of >> that document and the VRRP working group were unable to reach consensus on >> which interpretation is correct." >> >> That's rather unfortunate, since that RFC specifies the protocol this MIB is > _for_. I >> wish we could do better. From my limited knowledge here, I am agnostic as to >> whether the disagreement would make a substantive difference in the MIB. I put >> this in the "minor" section in hopes that it does not--but people more versed > in >> the protocol should think about this. > > Yes, this is really unfortunate. > > The WG (now closed) was unable to reach any firm conclusion. The authors of the > original spec were a bit vague and indecisive. > > We were left with no option other than for the authors of this document to: > - pick the interpretation they thought was most likely > - document the fact > - move on > > My feeling is that the lack of decisiveness in the WG for an established > protocol (not widely deployed, but reasonably well implemented and deployed) > showed that this was not an important function in the protocol. In practice, it > did not matter which choice was made in the MIB module because no-one seemed to > care which choice was made in the protocol. > > Thus, if VRRP was being advance on the protocol ladder, I would look for the > feature to be removed rather than for the issue to be resolved. > > Cheers, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf