Hi 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. This mentions three vendors wanting to implement MIB as writable. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg01382.html And one more vendor voicing for writable. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg01397.html I agree that defining & wording writable MIB is much more painful than all read-only MIB. But above thread indicates the desire by multiple vendors to implement writable BFD MIB. Therefore it does seem that there are interests, and going forward with write-access will benefit the community. And with *ReadOnlyCompliance defined, BFD MIB can also accommodate those implementing them as just read-only. -Nobo > > -sam > > > > > -- Jeff