Hi Adrian, One comment inline. On Apr 17, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > 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. %sam - If this MIB allows write access, do you/WG anticipate, any extension to the MIB should also provide write-access as well? For example: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib/ augments this base MIB to support MPLS. It adds more confusion than solving the issue as base MIB supports write-access, but augmented/ MIB extension doesn't. As the BFD MIB authors were not supportive of write-access objects in the MIBs, why to have them in the first place? cheers -sam > 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 > >