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

["Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>]

I concur.
It could also be useful for an application to know explicitly whether it
supports read-write or read-only compliance.
dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:59 AM
> To: Andy Bierman; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: mreview@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: FW: [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.
> 
> 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
> 
>