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

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Yes. These changes were identified as a problem that could hurt
interoperability for the reasons that you have mentioned. The syntax
will be reversed back in the next version, and I entered a DISCUSS in
the IESG system to make sure that the problem is addressed. 

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:24 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Bill Fenner (E-mail); Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: review for: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-09.txt 
> [was RE: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for April 13, 2006 Telechat ]
> 
> Hello again,
> 
> I generated an smidiff report (attached) to get a quick check 
> on the changes since RFC 1850.  There are two that might be a 
> cause for
> concern:  the base types of ospfExternLsaCksumSum and 
> ospfAreaLsaCksumSum have been changed from Integer32 to Unsigned32.  
> The reason that these changes concern me is that they will 
> cause over-the-wire changes in the GetResponse-PDUs returned 
> by an agent (more precisely, command responder).
> 
> It is possible that these changes could cause a manager that 
> implements the new version of the spec to fail to 
> interoperate with a deployed agant that implements the 
> previous version of the spec, and also could cause a manager 
> that implements the previous version of the spec to fail to 
> interoperate with an agent that implements the new spec to 
> fail version of the spec.
> 
> Did the WG give adequate consideration to this point?
> 
> //cmh
>