RE: glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-12.txt

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

	Cool. Will fix as suggested.

	--Tom


>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf 
>Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:06 AM
>To: Stefan Winter; mpls@UU.NET; iesg@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-12.txt
>
>
>You suggested fix makes sense to me.
>
>Thanks,
>Bert 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stefan Winter [mailto:mail@stefan-winter.de]
>> Sent: woensdag 10 september 2003 9:57
>> To: mpls@UU.NET; iesg@ietf.org
>> Subject: glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-12.txt
>> 
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> ( I know it is VERY short before end of last call, but I just 
>> came across this 
>> one...)
>> 
>> the mplsXCTable contains a RowStatus column and an 
>AdminStatus column.
>> The DESCRIPTION of its RowStatus reads, 
>>        "When a row in this table has a row in the active(1)
>>         state, no objects in this row except this object
>>         and the mplsXCStorageType can be modified."
>> Which does not make sense. As far as I know, the core purpose 
>> of AdminStatus 
>> is to have the possibility to put an XC offline without 
>> having to set the 
>> entire row to NotInService. But if one cannot modify the 
>> AdminStatus once the 
>> RowStatus is "up", this is not possible.
>> If the description remains the way it is now, AdminStatus is 
>> mostly useless. A 
>> simple addition like
>>        "except this object, the mplsXCStorageType
>>         and the mplsXCAdminStatus can be modified."
>> would make much more sense.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> Stefan Winter
>> 
>