[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-12.txt
Tom, it seems to me that this was already caught during
IETF Last Call. SO it is not good that it was not addressed.
What we can do is that Alex or I add a RFC-Editor note
when we put this on IESG agenda. Could you pls prepare
such a note (in the normal RFC-Editor prefered format) aka:
on page xxx,
OLD
... old text ...
NEW
... new (fixed) text
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2003 15:35
> To: 'Stefan Winter'; mpls@UU.NET; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-12.txt
>
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf
> >Of Stefan Winter
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:57 AM
> >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.
>
> Good catch. I will fix this along with any changes
> from the RFC editor.
>
> --Tom
>
>
>
> >
> >Greetings,
> >
> >Stefan Winter
> >
>