RE: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu- 08.txt]

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

> > From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
> > To: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> > Cc: "Mark Ellison" <ellison@ieee.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-08.txt]
> 
> > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, C. M. Heard wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Mark Ellison wrote:
> > > > > Here's the suggested text (corrected):
> > > > >
> > > > >    - For conceptual rows used exclusively for defining objects
> > > > >    referenced by notification definitions:
> > > > >
> > > > >        - At least one non-auxiliary object must be defined with
> > > > >        a MAX-ACCESS of (at least) "accessible-for-notify"
> > >
> > > I don't have an issue with including this text if the other MIB
> > > Doctors agree.  I don't think it says anything different from what
> > > is in RFC 2578, but when running some test cases I did notice that
> > > an old version of SMICng complained about "accessible-for-notify"
> > > objects in tables:
> > >
> > > E: f(xx.mi2), (2089,1) Row "xxxEntry" may not object with status of
> > > "accessible-for-notify" defined under it
> > > E: f(xx.mi2), (2122,1) Item "xxxNearFarFlag" has invalid value for
> > > max-access
> > >
> > > So maybe adding some text to cover this point is worhtwhile.
> > >
> > > MIB Doctor comments, please.
> >
> > I haven't heard any MIB Doctors speak up in favor of making this
> > change.
> >
> > Based on that, I think I have to assume that we do not have
> > consensus to put it into the next spin of the document.
> ...
> 
personal opinion: I prefer to see the change.
If we agree (and I do) that that is what 2578 says/intends anyway
than better to make it explicit.

Bert