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

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

> >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.

Is it just marketing? 
Or is it also a way to allow for an RFP to explicitly state 
what it needs in terms of the MIB support in a particular product?

So instead of an RFP asking for RFCXXX (MIB-ABC) support, it
would ask for RFCXXX, abcMibFullCompliance or abcMibReadOnlyCompliance.

And now a vendor has to respond explicitly.
If there is only one MODULE-COMPLIANCE which allows read-only AND
read-write, then it is much more difficult to express.

Just my opinion or 2 cents
Bert