FW: [Entmib] Minutes from SF (fwd)

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

Question.... 
  Requiring implementation of mandatory objects is fine -- that's equivalent
  to requiring the implementation of all MUSTs in non-MIB specifications,
  but requiring implementation of conditional mandatory is like requiring
  implementation of all SHOULDs in non-MIB specifications.  Does the
  IESG really require that SHOULDs be removed if they have never been
  implemented??  For example, if a protocol specification specifies the
  action an implementation should take in some unlikely scenario, must
  that action be removed from the specification if no implementation ever
  encountered that scenario ??  Surely, we don't want specifications with
  loopholes even if no implementation has yet encountered those loopholes.

This came up on context of Entity MIB WG. Full text is below.

My udnerstanding is that the answer is YES. We MUST see an implementation
report where at least two genetically independent implementations DO
implement all the SHOULDs. We do not require that everyone implements them,
but at least two must do so in oder to advance from PS to nay higher level.

Am I correct or do people have differing opinions?

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com]
Sent: dinsdag 22 april 2003 16:01
To: bwijnen@lucent.com
Cc: abierman@cisco.com; kzm@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [Entmib] Minutes from SF (fwd)


Bert,

I queried Andy about this item in the Entmib WG's minutes from SF:

> >> Discussion of the current status of the Entity MIB and implementation 
> >> reports.  
> >> 
> >> CONSENSUS:  Deprecate the LP mapping table and submit for DS.

I suggested the entityMappingGroup should be split into two groups:

1. a Mandatory group containing entAliasMappingIdentifier and
entPhysicalChildIndex, and

2. a Conditional Mandatory group containign just entLPPhysicalIndex.
with a condition of "mandatory for all agents that support multiple
naming scopes".

Andy's response was:

> This seems reasonable but the WG was facing a different problem.
> The MIB cannot advance to DS with unimplemented objects. The WG
> never got any reports including these objects.  The MODULE-COMPLIANCE
> is not a factor here, just the STATUS clauses.

Requiring implementation of mandatory objects is fine -- that's equivalent
to requiring the implementation of all MUSTs in non-MIB specifications,
but requiring implementation of conditional mandatory is like requiring
implementation of all SHOULDs in non-MIB specifications.  Does the
IESG really require that SHOULDs be removed if they have never been
implemented??  For example, if a protocol specification specifies the
action an implementation should take in some unlikely scenario, must
that action be removed from the specification if no implementation ever
encountered that scenario ??  Surely, we don't want specifications with
loopholes even if no implementation has yet encountered those loopholes.

Thanks,
Keith.