Re: draft-ietf-adslmib-gshdslbis-08

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Clay Sikes wrote:
[ ... overview of changes snipped ... ]
> Next, I'm asking for two things:
>  1. Look over the changes and make sure I didn't break anything.
>     I especially need Bert, Randy, and Mike to review the changes.

All of my review comments seem to have been addressed.  I
particularly commend the effort that you put into the Security
Considerations section;  it looks like a lot of thought went into
that.  The work that you put into the section on notification
throttling is also appreciated.  As for the formatting/editorial
changes, it all looks for the better ... I did not see anything
that got broken.

>  2. Before we push this draft any further, I would like to propose
>     a significant change to the draft and am looking for anyone
>     who thinks the proposal is a bad idea.  I would like to break
>     out the TCs such that they are in a separate TC-MIB module.
>     The reason is that it has taken a lot of time to update this
>     MIB module to support G.shdsl.bis.  If there needs to be a
>     future update, and the annex list is a concern, the change may
>     go faster if only a TC Module needs to be updated.  This would
>     require at least another spin of the draft along with creating
>     a dependency.  In anyone feels that this a bad idea, please
>     let me know.  I will not move forward on this if the group
>     feels it's a bad idea.

Unfortunately, moving TCs (or other any definitions) to a different
MIB module breaks backward compatibility with any MIB modules
(including, possibly, enterprise MIB modules) that IMPORT those TCs
from HDSL2-SHDSL-LINE-MIB.  For this reason, it is usually not
considered acceptable to move definitions from one MIB module to
another.  See RFC 2578, Section 10, next-to-last paragraph on p. 37.

Mike