Subject: [Diffserv] Re: New diffserv MIB (rev 13) and MIB Compliance

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:54:28 +0200

I generally think that having two compliance statements is good.

I agree with Bert's statement that ReadOnly compliance is really only
a partial implementation of the functionality of the MIB and as such I
see his motivation for diffServMIBCompliance and diffServMIBFullCompliance.
On the other hand, I do not have a very strong feeling about these
names and I will certainly not object against the other choice.

On the technical side, I am wondering why the WRITE-SYNTAX requires
support for active(1). This is basically a no-op if I only support
createAndGo(4) and destroy(6) since the row will always be active(1)
during the time it exists.

As a service to implementors, we might want to say at some place
(perhaps in the DESCRIPTION of the compliance statement) that agents
which implement only createAndGo(4) and destroy(6) must respond with a
wrongValue error if they receive a set request with createAndWait(5)
or notInService(2). (This is defined in RFC 2579 but requires some
search to actually find it.)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Muehlenpfordtstr. 23, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html