RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05.txt

Mike,
Got it. Thanks for a very informative explanation.
Regards,
-E.  

-----Original Message-----
From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 19:40
To: Edward Beili
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]
Subject: RE: FW: [Hubmib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05.txt 

Edward,

Please DO NOT change the MAX-ACCESS clause for these index elements.

Both RFC 2578 and the MIB review guidelines do not allow the MAX-ACCESS value to be decreased because doing so could spoil on-the-wire interoperability between a manager implementation based on an the old version of the MIB module and an agent implementation based on the new version of the MIB module.

As you know, the MAU-MIB was originally (in RFC 1515) an SMIv1 MIB module, which required index elements to be read-only.  When such a MIB module is translated to SMIv2, the MAX-ACCESS value is generally required to be the same as the ACCESS value in the SMIv1 definition (see RFC 3584 2.1.1. (5) for details).  That is why the index elements listed below have a MAX-ACCESS value of read-only.  And in each case there is an ASN.1 comment adjacent to the MAX-ACCESS clause that notes this fact:

        [ ... ]
        MAX-ACCESS  read-only  -- read-only since originally an
                               -- SMIv1 index
        [ ... ]

If we were making new definitions these would be not-accessible but since the original SMIv1 definitions were read-only we leave them that way to ensure backward compatibility and live with the complaints from smilint.

Thanks,

Mike

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Edward Beili wrote:
> Mike/Dan,
> I've noticed that smilint complains about some index elements in the MAU-MIB being accessible:
> 
> rfc3636bis.mib:173: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index 
> element `rpMauGroupIndex' of row `rpMauEntry' should be not-accessible 
> in SMIv2 MIB
> rfc3636bis.mib:173: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index 
> element `rpMauPortIndex' of row `rpMauEntry' should be not-accessible 
> in SMIv2 MIB
> rfc3636bis.mib:173: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index 
> element `rpMauIndex' of row `rpMauEntry' should be not-accessible in 
> SMIv2 MIB
> rfc3636bis.mib:482: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index 
> element `ifMauIfIndex' of row `ifMauEntry' should be not-accessible in 
> SMIv2 MIB
> rfc3636bis.mib:482: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index 
> element `ifMauIndex' of row `ifMauEntry' should be not-accessible in 
> SMIv2 MIB
> rfc3636bis.mib:1253: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index 
> element `broadMauIfIndex' of row `broadMauBasicEntry' should be 
> not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
> rfc3636bis.mib:1253: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index 
> element `broadMauIndex' of row `broadMauBasicEntry' should be 
> not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB
> 
> Do you see a reason not to change the MAX-ACCESS clause for these index elements to 'not-accessible'?
> 
> Regards,
> -E.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 15:51
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Edward Beili
> Subject: Re: FW: [Hubmib] I-D 
> ACTION:draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05.txt
> 
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > Can you please confirm that you are happy with this version and 
> > whether you feel that the document can be submitted to the IESG?
> 
> Hello Dan,
> 
> Indeed, as far as I am concerned this document is ready to go.  It addresses all the issues I had with -03 and -04.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>