Re: FW: [Iptel] read-only compliance for TRIP MIB

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 07:13 AM 1/14/2004, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>This came up in IPTEL. Comments?
>
>Regards,
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: iptel-admin@ietf.org [mailto:iptel-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of David Zinman
>Sent: 14 January, 2004 4:01 PM
>To: iptel@ietf.org
>Subject: [Iptel] read-only compliance for TRIP MIB
>
>
>There has been a request to include a "read-only" compliance
>section in the TRIP MIB. If most implementations plan on 
>doing read-write support then it might not useful. 
>However, if there is enough support for read-only compliance,
>another draft will be issued to support it.
>
>Comments, preferences??

This issue keeps coming up -- it's kind of a CLR,
but still a MIB design choice that needs to be made.
IMO, 2 M-Cs are more for marketing effort that for
engineering benefit.  Clearly the SMI is capable
of expressing the read-only conformance as a subset
of the full conformance M-C (w/ lots of MIN-ACCESS
clauses).  Having 2 M-Cs seems to be an attempt to
make it clear to non-experts that read-only conformance
is possible.

I am curious how applications utilize the M-Cs (if at all).
Is one complex M-C better than 2 simpler ones?  Do any
applications expect a MIB to have exactly one 'current'
M-C?  (We have an internal MIB checker tool that complains
if this condition isn't true, but that doesn't really count.)

Andy



>The decision will be made by Tuesday Jan 20.
>
>DZ
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Iptel mailing list
>Iptel@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel