Hi - > From: "Sam K. Aldrin" <aldrin.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> ... > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:53 PM > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17 ... > In order to support new functionality, we are extending/augmenting existing base > MIB and in addition some write-access objects as well. If we make those new > ones read-only objects, then only some objects or tables could be used with > write-access and these new objects (read-only) have to be configured differently. > In other words, full functionality cannot be provided. This got nothing to do with SMI. Then what's the problem? If the WG has consensus to add functionality, and that functionality logically requires a read-write MIB module of extension, the IESG policy already allows for such cases. Randy