Re: draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-06.txt: Issue-1 -> "MAY not"

On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:19 -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote: 
> Depending on what the WG would like the DESCRIPTION to mean,
> let me suggest one of the two following for mteObjectsEntryStatus.
> What implementations currently do could help us choose.
> 
>    This object allows creation and deletion of entries.
>    When its value is 'active', attempts to set this object to any
>    value other than 'destroy' MUST be rejected.  Likewise, attempts
>    to set any of the of the other object instances in an active row
>    MUST be rejected.

There's an extraneous "of the" in that text. 

> --or--
> 
>    This object allows creation and deletion of entries.
>    When its value is 'active', implementations MAY reject requests
>    to set this object to any value other than 'destroy'.  Likewise,
>    implementations MAY reject requests to set any of the other
>    object instances in an active row.
> 
> I would hope that the changes to mteEventEntryStatus would be similar.
> My guess is that the first one was probably what was intended.

Can I ask why?
There does seem to be a general tendency in a lot of MIBs to forbid
*any* alteration to existing rows, and I've never really understood
this.
  What is the fundamental objection to being able to tweak the
notification that is sent in response to some event, or the list
of varbinds that should be included?

Dave