RE: Pls check and comment: draft-ietf-mboned-msdp-mib-01.txt (Exp erim ental)

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

That is my understanding, but I will check and make sure.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 13:43
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Pls check and comment: draft-ietf-mboned-msdp-mib-01.txt
> (Experim ental)
> 
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
> > To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> > Cc: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: Pls check and comment: 
> draft-ietf-mboned-msdp-mib-01.txt (Experim ental)
> ...
> > I believe that we have talked about this topic many times,
> > and the approach that should be done is to have the
> > "RowStatus" object have a syntax clause that is
> >  SYNTAX     RowStatus { active(1), destroy(6) }
> >
> > Thus, I believe that it is inappropriate that
> > the syntax of the "RowStatus" object be
> >   SYNTAX     RowStatus
> > and then have a MODULE-COMPLIANCE has shown
> > below.
> ...
> 
> The key question is whether they want to *forbid* implementations
> from supporting creation.  If that is their intent, then the suggested
> change makes sense.
> 
> Randy
> 
>