Re: Summary for RFC 3276 respin

Hi -

> From: "Clay Sikes" <[email protected]>
> To: "Bob Ray" <[email protected]>; "Rajesh Abbi" <[email protected]>; "Lee Nipper" <[email protected]>; "Matt Beanland"
<[email protected]>
> Cc: "IETF ADSL MIB List" <[email protected]>; "Clay Sikes" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 4:00 PM
> Subject: [Adslmib] Summary for RFC 3276 respin
...
> 1. Line Rates
>
> It seems like we all agree that the all line rates should be changed to
> an unbounded Unsigned32. Removing the restrictions on the upper limit
> will prevent us from making having to make any changes should the upper
> limits that exist today change in the future. This is really good in
> that Annex G in the G.991.2, 12/2003, still has a provisional rate.
...

I agree that this seems like the right thing to do.

However, as far as I can tell, the rules for revising MIB modules do
not support this change, and would require us to create new objects
that lacked the old, over-specified range constraints.  I think we should
check with the AD to see whether the need to maintain interoperability
with the installed base is sufficient justification in this case to bend the rules.
There needs to be some thought to verify that both old manager/new agent
and new manager/old agent scenarios would work.

(The lesson, of course, is that constraints given in a MIB should be
those inherent in the architecture of the stuff being managed, not
just the current technology.)

Randy