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

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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 10:14 PM
>To: tnadeau@cisco.com; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'Stefan Winter'
>Cc: iesg@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-13.txt
>
>
>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.

	Can you please provide explicit text about precisely 
which changes you want made? I really don't want to go 
round and round with these changes as that can be a slippery
slope.

	--Tom


>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
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >
>> 
>> 
>