Hi Jeff, Comments inline. On Apr 17, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Sam, > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:11:15PM -0700, Sam K. Aldrin wrote: >> %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? > > As noted in earlier mailing list chatter, there is some support for write > access in existing implementations. Given the lack of significant detail > when pressed for the name of such an implementation, I'm suspecting smaller > vendor or internal implementation. That's still sufficient to leave write > available. > > Given that one of the original contexts of asking if we could remove write > was whether IETF was being asked to provide such a thing for MPLS-TP with > related impact on your extension MIB and the answer was "no", that shouldn't > be the main criteria. No. The context of my question is not related to MPLS-TP as such, but write-access support in general. I should have added 'clarification' in my earlier email. > > My suspicion is that if we were to ship the base MIB with writeable objects, > we may be forced to consider similar things for the extension MIB(s). Both, bfd-mpls and mpls-TP MIB's are extensions to base MIBs, MPLS-TE and BFD-MIB respectively, with write-access. Had to do write-access because of the reason you've mentioned above, which is base MIB. It would be painful to publish/support write-access MIB's when there is no clear interest. Hence my clarification question. -sam > > -- Jeff