Re: RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-06.txt

Hi -

> From: "David B Harrington" <[email protected]>
...
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:50 AM
> Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: AD review: draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-06.txt
...
> The IEEE standard does not discuss the persistency of the management
> variables. As long as the IEEE standard remains silent on this point,
> I think the corresponding IETF standard should also remain silent.
>
> The IEEE standard should be updated to discuss persistency of each
> management variable. The coresponding MIB objects should be updated to
> correspond, following SMI rules, as part of the IEEE standard update.
>
> Is there a way to clarify the persistence requirement for each object
> in the IETF bridge mibs once the IEEE updates their compliance
> requirements that would not require obsoleting and redefining each MIB
> object?
>
> WG - any comments on how to approach this?
...

Rather than being silent, if the IEEE is unable to provide clarification of
what the persistency expectations are, we should include text to the
effect that "management applications MUST NOT assume that these
MIB objects are backed by non-volatile memory of some kind, and
furthermore MUST NOT assume that these MIB objects will not
persist across a re-boot or loss of power."

Anything less is asking for non-interoperability.

Randy