Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-03.txt

On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 09:20:20AM +0200, Alex Ruzin wrote:
>Actually I only meant to make the definition for this
>object *semantically* better. Are you agree with my proposition
>"in general", except "MAX-ACCESS"? Do you think, that definition
>of this object has to be improved?
>If so, I propose
>
>    dot1dStpPortEnable OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX      INTEGER {
>                        dummyReadValue(0),
>                        forceBlock(1),
>                        forceDisable(2)
>                   }
>        MAX-ACCESS  read-write
>        STATUS      current
>        DESCRIPTION
>            "'Force Port State' of the port. Both GET and GETNEXT operation
>              always return value dummyReadValue(0). An attempt to write the value
>             dummyReadValue(0) must cause an error."
>        REFERENCE
>            "IEEE 802.1D-1998: Section 14.8.2.2"
>        ::= { dot1dStpPortEntry 4 }
>
>Your comments and/or proposition, please?

The operation of this object is clear but such a redefinition
would not be allowed by IESG mib doctors as it is not backward compatible. 

If this definition were for a new object, then I don't see why there is
a need for a dummyReadValue other than to create a write-only style access.
The SMIv2 dropped write-only access for a purpose and as such most MIB 
doctors would discourage its use.

I think dot1dStpPortEnable should be left as-is but the front matter
should explain how this object was supposed to operate since it 
is clear that many vendors did not implement it according to 
the original authors intentions.

Mike MacFaden