RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2558bis - Definitions of Managed Objects for the SONET/SDH Interface Type to Draft Standard

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

Steve writes:
> >Last Call to expire on: 2003-2-18
> >
> >	Please return the full line with your position.
> >
> >                    Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain  
> 
> >Allison Mankin      [   ]     [ X ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> 
> This is probably due to my ignorance of MIB construction, but...
> 
> Some items say "Supports read-only access" or "just read-only access
> may be supported," which I assume means "this variable may be 
> implemented as read-only if you wish".  I'm not thrilled with the 
> wording; I'm even more concerned that it's only specified for a few 
> items.  Why, for example, isn't that true of 
> ifConnectorPresent, which is described as "Set to true(1)"?
> 
Well, the above is all in the section
   3.2.  Use of ifTable for SONET/SDH Medium/Section/Line Layer
Such a section is mandatory for all MIB documents that build
in the IF-MIB (RFC2863). They have to explain how various
entries in the ifTable show up for the specific technology.

W.r.t. details:
- If you look at RFC2863, page 51/52, then you will see that it is OK
  (according to the compliance) if the object ifAdminStatus is
  implemented in read-only mode. I think the text in sect 3.2 is
  repeating that (machine readable) compliance statement.
- Same for ifLinkUpDownTrapEnable, see RFC2863 page 51
- For ifConnectorPresent, this object in fact is a read-only object
  see RFC2863 page 43. What sect 3.2 states here is that this is in
  fact representing a "physical" interface as opposed to a "logical"
  interface.

I am checking with the authors if they can think of better wording
that we can put out as RFC-Editor note.

Hope this helps/explains,
Bert