Re :RE: A state model....
Syam Madanpalli <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.entmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <4201682.1071118069933.JavaMail.weblogic@ep_app04> |
Hello Dan ------- Original Message ------- Sender : Romascanu, Dan (Dan)<[email protected]> Date : Dec 10, 2003 16:04 Title : RE: [Entmib] 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. --> When we were implementing IPv6 protocol stack, we felt that the IF State Model is not sufficient for IPv6 Interfaces to reflect all error condition. I did not give a thought to add missing pieces in IF State Model rather than defining the new State Model. Probably it is a good idea to think in this direction. Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ Entmib mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib