Hi All,
I don't think that the WG need/should to debate whether or not to drop
The deprecated objects from the new version, but as I said earlier, such
Changes should be raised in early stage/version of the draft and not in the
Last minute before the last draft turns into RFC. This way the vendors
Will have enough time to evaluate and prepared for such major changes.
Best regards,
Shimon L.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 6:34 PM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Goren, Ofer [ISRTE:AM49:EXCH]; massadb@netscout.com; Les Bell; rmonmib@ietf.org; mibs@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RMONMIB] comments on draft-ietf-rmonmib-dsmon-mib-02.txt
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
_______________________________________________
RMONMIB mailing list
RMONMIB@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmonmib