RE: A state model....

Syam,

> 
> >
> > Finally, it was sort of strange that the security section specified
> > a reference to SNMPv1 when the document is a model and does not
> > contain SNMP object nor notification definitions.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier the draft is not complete by itself. 
> This can be done
> if the approach is useful.

I think that the point that David is raising is why bother to include an SNMP-related text in the security section, while the draft does not contain any SNMP MIB objects definition. 

However, this is a minor editorial issue, relative to the modeling problems raised by David. I share his concern that this draft goes into a divergent direction relative to the existing interface state model defined by the Interfaces MIB. I am wondering whether you have looked at that model and considered adding the eventual missing pieces, instead of creating an alternate one. 

Regards,

Dan