Re: two questions on draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-10

I do not think that I saw answers to these questions yet. As I am
transferring today my yellow dot and AD responsibilities to Benoit, this
document together with eth-mib transfer to him, and hopefully the
remaining issues will be quickly answered. 

Dan




> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 3:28 PM
> To: Edward Beili
> Cc: [email protected]; adslmib mailing list
> Subject: [Adslmib] two questions on draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-10
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> The I-D draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-10 was approved by the IESG with
> 'point raised'. This means that I would like to get clarification from
> you (and the WG if needed) on a couple of points before approving the
> document.
> 
> The two questions derive from the COMMENT entered by Adrian Farrel.
> They
> are non-blocking from his perspective, yet I think that they are
> interesting enough to deserve being answered, even if they do not lead
> to changes in the document.
> 
> 1.  How likely is it that new bonding schemes (i.e. other
> technologies) will come along and be handled by this MIB module
without
> extensions? I think the intention is that this module is technology-
> independent, so that it would not need to be revised for a new bonding
> type.
> 
> However, GBondSchemeList and GBondScheme are closed lists such that
you
> would need to revise the module to support new technologies. That
seems
> a shame.
> 
> You could move the TCs into a separate module so that only that module
> needs to be revised.
> 
> An alternative, is to define an IANA Textual convention for this and
> allow just the TC to be updated as necessary.
> 
> ---
> 
> 2. I find the presence of 'unknown' as a bit in GBondSchemeList to be
a
> bit
> odd. In general, bits in an object with a Syntax of Bits can be
> independently set. But here you could not set 'unknown' and any of the
> other bits.
> 
> On the other hand, what would it mean to return the object with none
of
> the bits set? Is that different from returning the 'unknown' bit?
> 
> Please address these two questions.
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib