Re: Comments on new draft-ietf-atomib-rfc2558bis-01.txt (Fwd)

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

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Randy Bush wrote:

> > -  on (a) the question must be asked: does this
> >    deprecate current objects. the answer is no, because
> >    the specs that 2558bis is based on are widely implemented.
> 
> sorry to butt in with pedantry (and sorry to shock friends that did
> not expect me to be actually reading this:-), but you, possibly
> unintentionally, slightly beg the question
> 
>   are there, or might there be, correct implementations of the current
>   specs which would be made non-conformant by 2558bis?

If you mean "would any correct implementation of rfc 2558 be made
non-conformant by 2558bis" then the answer is "no, it would not".
The only non-editorial change that has been made was the addition of
two more values for the enumerated INTEGER sonetPathCurrentWidth
(this is one of the changes specifically allowed by the SMI).  
Adding these values will allow (but will not require) support for
STS-192c/STM-64 and STS-768c/STM-256 rates.  The object in question
has a MIN-ACCESS of read-only, and implementations need only return
the values that they actually support.

//cmh