RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D (fwd)

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

Ah... agreed. I was not suggesting to take the text out of the
DESCRIPTION clause of the object itself. We can keep that too.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 02:07
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: David T. Perkins; mreview@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Review of EFM-04 I-D (fwd)
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 May 2006, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > David, when I see something like this:
> >      dot3OamLoopbackStatus OBJECT-TYPE
> >        SYNTAX      INTEGER {
> >                      -- all values, except where noted, can be read
> >                      -- but cannot be written
> >                      noLoopback (1),
> > 
> >                      -- initiatingLoopback can be read or written
> >                      initiatingLoopback (2),
> >                      remoteLoopback (3),
> > 
> >                      -- terminatingLoopback can be read or written
> >                      terminatingLoopback (4),
> >                      localLoopback (5),
> >                      unknown (6)
> >                    }
> > 
> > Then I wonder if it would be wise to put in the MODULE-COMPLIANCE 
> > something aka 
> > 
> >    OBJECT dot3OamLoopbackStatus 
> >    WRITE-SYNTAX {  initiatingLoopback (2),
> >                    terminatingLoopback (4)
> >                 }
> >    DESCRIPTION "Only these 2 values are writable. The other 
> values are read-only
> >                 values."
> > 
> > Do people agree that such would make sense?
> 
> Be aware that this would change the meaning.  The OBJECT clause
> allows, but does not require, the agent to reject a set request
> specifying values other than initiatingLoopback or
> terminatingLoopback.  Putting the language in the object definition
> requires the agent to reject all values but those.
> 
> //cmh
>