RE: review for: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-09.txt [wasRE: PRELIMI NARY Agenda and Package for April 13, 2006 Telechat ]

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > Actually, RFC 1850 contained an SMIv2 MIB module, but that was
> > itself an update to RFC 1253 (which did contain an SMIv2 MIB
-------------------------------------------------------^^^^^
egregious typo:  should say:                           SMIv1
(sorry about that)

> OK,OK, 1850 was more SMIv2 like, although I would not really call it 
> an SMIv2 MIB. I guess that was caused by the fact that it was based
> on (i.e. an update to) RFC 1253. I am somewhat surprised how you can
> say that RFC1253 contains an SMIv2 MIB module and would like to 
> understand why you think that.

Fat fingers :-(

> But the summary is that the new document in fact is still an update
> (so not a rewrite) of some very old MIB work and so for compatibility
> reasons and for (I assume) existing deployment, we are prepared to
> accept the module as is (preferably with some additional explanations
> as to why things are as they are, so we do not have to have this
> discussion again at the next update). If this were a new MIB module, 
> we would bark quite badly at it.

Agreed.

//cmh