Re: AD Evaluation requested changes

Hi -

> From: "David B Harrington" <[email protected]>
> To: "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:27 AM
> Subject: [Bridge-mib] AD Evaluation requested changes
...
> 4) I originally suggested that for all objects that were already
> defined in RFC2674, it would probably be wrong to make conformant
> implementations non-conformant by
> adding a new requirement, so I suggested the text: "The value of this
> object SHOULD be retained across reinitializations of the management
> system."
>
> Bert responded, "I'd add some text then as to why we use SHOULD
> instead of MUST.
> In other words, make it clear that the SHOULD is there to accomodate
> old (compliant implementations) but the new implementations MUST
> use persistent storage and that old implementations are
> encouraged to also make it persistent."
>
> Since this is a question of compliance, I now recommend using MUST in
> the description, and adding text to the compliance description
> clauses:
>
> qBridgeCompliance: "RFC2674 was silent about the expected persistence
> of the read-write objects in this MIB module. Applications MUST NOT
> assume that the values of the read-write objects are persistent across
> reinitializations of the management system, and MUST NOT assume that
> the values are not persistent across reinitializations of the
> management system."
>
> qBridgeCompliance2: "This document clarifies the persistence
> requirements for the read-write objects in this MIB module. All
> implementations claiming compliance to qBridgeCompliance2 MUST retain
> the values of those read-write objects that specify this requirement."
>
> Is this acceptable to the WG?
...

This seems reasonable to me.

Randy