Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi -

>From: "Sam K. Aldrin" <aldrin.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Apr 17, 2014 6:24 PM
...
>Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
...
>My only concern is with the new extension MIB's.
>If the base MIB (this MIB) has write access,
>future extension MIB's may be forced to support
>write-access.

And how, exactly, does the fact that a base MIB module
permits write access force extension MIB modules to
require (or even permit) write access?

It's perfectly reasonable SMI to define an AUGMENTS
table consisting entirely of read-only objects.

Randy





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]