RE: glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-13.txt

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

Since you need to update for the MIN-ACCESS read-only
in the FullCompliance, I propose to include this fix
also in the next rev.

And in the replacement text, I would remove the last sentence
as well. It is superfluous (of course one needs to update
xxxStorageType as described in its DESCRIPTION clause.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 31 oktober 2003 19:46
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'Stefan Winter'
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-12.txt
> 
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
> >Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 11:42 AM
> >To: tnadeau@cisco.com; 'Stefan Winter'
> >Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> >Subject: 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.
> 
> 	My apologies. I believe this is the only issue that was 
> missed, BTW.
> 
> >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:
> 
> 	OK.  Here it is:
> 
> RFC Editor:
> 
> OLD TEXT
> 
> mplsXCRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE
>    SYNTAX        RowStatus
>    MAX-ACCESS    read-create
>    STATUS        current
>    DESCRIPTION
>        "For creating, modifying, and deleting this row.
>         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. 
>         Modification of mplsXCStorateType MUST be done
>         as specified in the description of that object."
>    ::= { mplsXCEntry 7 }
> 
> 
> NEW (fixed) TEXT
> 
> mplsXCRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE
>    SYNTAX        RowStatus
>    MAX-ACCESS    read-create
>    STATUS        current
>    DESCRIPTION
>        "For creating, modifying, and deleting this row.
>         When a row in this table has a row in the active(1) 
>         state, no objects in this row except this object,
>         the mplsXCStorageType and the mplsXCAdminStatus can 
>         be modified. Modification of mplsXCStorateType MUST 
>         be done as specified in the description of that 
>         object."
>    ::= { mplsXCEntry 7 }
> 
> 
> 	--Tom
> 
> 
> 
> >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
> >> >
> >> 
> >
> 
>