Re: Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-09.txt

On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:41:35PM -0500, David B Harrington wrote:

> > (a) the text in Sections 3.2 was adapted from the original 1493 but
> > now points to RFCs 3418 and 2863.  As a result it is now inaccurate.
> > Details were spelled out in previous e-mail responses to Juergen.
> > If you wish to leave the prerequisites exactly as they were in 1493
> > then you should probably revert to referring to RFC 1213.  If you
> > want to leave the references to 3418 and 2863 then please do
> > something to fix the inaccuracies, particularly in 3.2.2.
> > 
> After reviewing the discussion more closely, I agree. 
> This text should refer to RFC1213 for backwards compatibility.
> 
> There is no MODULE-COMPLIANCE in RFC3418 that appropriately reflects
> RFC1213 compliance.
> The same appears to be true for RFC2863.

I personally hate to see this SMIv2 proposed standard version of the
BRIDGE-MIB depend on RFC1213. So if the current text is not good
enough, I would rather prefer to work through the details to come
up with text that says what we believe RFC 1493 did say, but referring 
to the current MIB modules we have. In the worst case, we list all 
the IF-MIB/SNMPv2-MIB objects that we believe were meant when RFC 
1493 was written. We may add a note that the IF-MIB/SNMPv2-MIB
have evolved and that compliance to the current IF-MIB/SNMPv2-MIB may 
require the implementation of additional objects but doing so is not 
mandated by the BRIDGE-MIB itself.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany