Re: Cable Device MIB -10 text for discussion

Hi -

> From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email protected]>
> To: "Ipcdn (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
...
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 6:38 PM
> Subject: [ipcdn] Cable Device MIB -10 text for discussion
...
> docsDevNmAccessInterfaces OBJECT-TYPE
...
> -- [KMarez]  Yes, a lot of questions.  Since the object is
> -- deprecated, can we just let this one go?  I think it might be
> -- reasonable to address two things though:
> --        *  Clarify which octet is the 'first' one.  From left or
> --           right?  While this might be implicit, it's probably good
> --           to state it.
> --        *  Clarify what to do with bits that correspond to
> --           non-existent interfaces.
...

This would help a lot.  The 2119-stuff needs to be fixed.  For all those
other questions, my preference would be to find out how the various
implementations have dealt with them.  (Presumably there are at least
a couple of implementors on this list.)  If they've done so in a consistent
manner, then the clarification is easy.  If they have not, then the degree
of flexibility should be made clearer, if possible.  Another alternative might
be to simply say that ambiguities in the original DESCRIPTION have
resulted in a situation where implementations aren't necessarily interoperable,
thus another motivation for deprecation.

Randy