Re: partial comments on section 5 of ibif

Hi -

> From: "bill" <[email protected]>
> To: "'Randy Presuhn'" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 10:31 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] partial comments on section 5 of ibif
>

> Randy, (let me take my WG Chair hat off)
>
> I don't want to disagree with your opinion of many of the interesting
> objects that are giving us fits (multicast packet counting)
>
> Let me try to change specification and implementation issues - we should
> specify multicast packets in/out whatever.  Then it is up to the
> implementation to provide a value for the counter - not implement the
> object (NO SUCH INSTANCE, NO SUCH OBJECT for V1)

so far, I am in total agreement with you.

>                                                  or return 0 - on an

No, returning a constant zero is *NOT* an option.  If multicast can happen,
then the choice is between implementing a counter that actually counts, or
not implementing it at all.  A counter that doesn't count the events it is
supposed to count is a bug, with the unfortunate potential of misleading
management systems to draw false conclusions about the network's
operation or performance.

> implementation decision.  I realize the IETF does not specify
> implementations, or provide conformance testing (This implementations
> fully supports RFC X)

You're right that we don't do the actual conformance tests.
However, we *do* define what it means to conform to a MIB module.
That's what RFC 2580  is all about.

> Your objections are that we are specifying implementation behavior,
> rather than what an ideal specification.  It is then up to the
> implementations to implement these counters in some way
...

Agreed.  Thanks for restating my point so clearly.

Randy