RE: MIB

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Comments inline
I started sending to just mibs mlist, I was getting multiple copies of every
msg
(as I bet most if not all of you do).

Bert
> ----------
> From: 	RJ Atkinson[SMTP:rja@inet.org]
> Sent: 	Monday, June 05, 2000 3:50 PM
> To: 	Jon Saperia
> Cc: 	Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Juergen Schoenwaelder;
> Spencer.Giacalone@predictive.com; djoyal@nortelnetworks.com;
> mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: 	Re: MIB
> 
> 	Several folks have COMPLETELY missed the issue, so please let
> me start over and try to explain from the top:
> 
> 	The original proposal was for DESCRIPTION text for a
> specific OID in the OSPF that said that if a particular OSPF
> implementation 
> did NOT implement SNMPv3, then a particular OID (one enabling OSPF 
> cryptographic authentication) would be MAX-ACCESS of READ-ONLY, 
> but that if the agent DID implement SNMPv3, then that OID would have 
> a MAX-ACCESS of READ-CREATE.
> 
> 	In short, the original proposal was that the MAX-ACCESS would be 
> a function of what security mechanisms were implemented and
> hence were --AVAILABLE-- to the operator.  
> 
> 	There was no proposal to constrain what an operator would
> actually do, so please drop that irrelevant thread.
> 
But if the implementer makes it READ-ONLY, then the operator cannot
change that to READ-WRITE or READ-CREATE, can he?

> 	Are there comments on the specific narrow proposal above ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ran
> rja@inet.org
> 
>