Hi David, Thanks for the review. To pick out one of your points: > This MIB contains many writable objects, so the authors should > take note of the IESG statement on writable MIB modules: > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html > > I did not see this mentioned in the shepherd writeup. If the OPS Area > has not been consulted, I strongly suggest doing so during IETF Last > Call, e.g., starting with Benoit Claise (AD). The OPS Directorate and the MIB Doctors will have been alerted to this document by the last call and we can expect their comments. But this question was discussed between the AD and the authors, and the AD was unlikely to agree to sponsor the document if he felt it went against the IESG statement. Our discussion resulted in some reduction of writeable objects. I think there are several points to consider: 1. This document had already been completed and publication requested (i.e. shepherd write-up written) at the time of the IESG statement. It would be unreasonable to make the statement retrospective. 2. There are already various implementations in equipment (not just management stations) of proprietary modules approximating to this document and these support write-access. 3. This is a low-level component protocol of the sort that is used on dumber devices and that is an area where write-access is more common. Cheers, Adrian