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

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 10:58 AM 1/14/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>> >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? 

marketing is important!

>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.

This is a valid reason for using 2 M-Cs.
This approach may also be better to discourage
implementation variation.  The 2 M-Cs can 
better direct developers to either implement 
the full write access or implement all read-only,
instead of some arbitrary mixture in between.


>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.

good point


>Just my opinion or 2 cents
>Bert 

Andy