Re: draft-ops-endpoint-mib-08.txt

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Keith McCloghrie writes:

[...]

Keith> Now, "SHOULD NOT" does not prohibit usage if there is a good
Keith> reason, as I believe there is in this case.  That is, it seems
Keith> to me that this is a situation in which a variation from the
Keith> recommendation is warranted.

Keith> However, I suspect this kind of situation will occur again.
Keith> So, perhaps the rationale behind the use of "SHOULD NOT" should
Keith> be re-examined, and either changed, or at least have additional
Keith> explanatory text.

The SHOULD NOT here requires that MIB designers have a very good
reason for subtyping InetAddressType and InetAddress and that they
understand the implications of doing so. In fact, subtyping these TCs
means that your MIB needs a revision if there is an IPv8 in the next 5
or 10 years.

So, if the MPLS signalling message is strictly bound to IPv4 and IPv6
addresses, then the implications of binding the MIB to exactly these
two address formats may be acceptable - and the "SHOULD NOT" allows
this.

On the other hand, will there be a problem if you do not subtype and
just use the more generic InetAddressType and InetAddress? Is the
object writable or is it readonly?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>