Re: [RMONMIB] comments on draft-ietf-rmonmib-dsmon-mib-02.txt

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

Hi Bert,

>....
> >
> > Every vendor knows there is risk implementing a draft before it is
> > published as an RFC. Even so, the MIB objects do not have to be
> > renumbered after the overflow counters are removed.
> >
> Well spoken. This is certainly true for a Internet-Draft.
> But even for an RFC at Proposed Standard, there is the risk that
> incompatible changes occur later. See RFC2026 which describes
> this process.
> 
> W.r.t. the MIB objects that already have been defined....
> They could be deprecated first and then later be obsoleted.
> That way, existing implementations are still fine.

This compromise works for me. It serves notice that the overflow
counters will eventually go away, without forcing any code changes to
existing DSMON implementations. Each time DSMON is ready for
advancement, the WG will need to debate whether or not to drop the
deprecated objects from the new version. (But that's okay ;-)

> 
> Bert

Andy