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

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

> >Bert, Steve, and WG --
> >
> >I'm not the document author, but please allow me to jump in anyway
> >with the following suggestions in an attempt to satisfy the IESG
> >review comments quoted below.
> >
> >In the description of ifAdminStatus in Sections 3.2, 3.3., and 3.4,
> >please change:
> >                        Supports read-only access.
> >to:
> >                        May be implemented with read-only access.
> >
> >In the description of ifLinkUpDownTrapEnable in Sections 3.2, 3.3.,
> >and 3.4, please change:
> >                        Just read-only access may be supported.
> >to:
> >                        May be implemented with read-only access.
> >
> >These changes are intended just to improve the wording 
> (which was left
> >unchanged from RFC 2558) while leaving the meaning unchanged.
> >
> >As Bert has pointed out, these words are simply re-iterating the
> >machine-readable information in the IF-MIB compliance statements.
> >These objects were singled out for special mention because they are
> >the only writeable control objects (with potentially traffic
> >disrupting effects) in the IF-MIB that apply to this type of
> >interface;  the rest of the stuff in the IF-MIB is either read-only
> >(like ifType) or not traffic affecting (like ifAlias).  In any case,
> >all that Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 of this document are required to
> >do is to specify certain information that is deliberately left open
> >by the IF-MIB document RFC 2863 and required to be specified by
> >media-specific MIB documents such as this one.  We shouldn't try to
> >repeat all of the stuff in RFC 2863.
> >
> >Would everyone be OK for the document to go forward with just the
> >wording changes proposed above?
> 
> Works for me.  Thanks.
> 
Works for me too. 	
So we can use your word changes to create an RFC-Editor note.

Thanks, Bert