Subject: Re: comments on rfc2011 update

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:21:37 -0500

Wes Hardaker wrote:

> Unfortunately, I have just learned that I'd really need this update.
> I'll say this is unfortunate because the cutoff date for comment is
> tomorrow, and I haven't had a chance to read the document.

I would encourage you to make comments anyway.  This MIB won't
be published right away due to a dependency on an updated Inet
Address TC document.

> 
> However, a really really really quick scan produced a couple of
> comments.
> 
> 1) The description field for the ipAddressEntry object is simply
>    ridiculously short:
>         "inet addr entry"
> 
> 2) Was there every discussion about making this table writable?  One
>    of the most longstanding needs within MIBs has been the ability to
>    assign addresses to interfaces.  I will have to go back and search
>    the mail archives to find out if this was ever discussed, but it
>    would be pretty simple, I would think, to make this table
>    writable.  This is the obvious place to make support for settable
>    addresses, so I'm curious as to why it wasn't done...
> 

I don't recall this specific topic being discussed.  However, there are
several MIBs that have gone to having multiple conformance statements.
One conformance statement handles read-only and the other read-write.
As for why it wasn't done, these updates have been trying to keep the
changes to just making the documents support IPv6.  Though, we did break
that with TCP-ESTATS...

Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Shawn A. Routhier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:04:26 -0800

>>1) The description field for the ipAddressEntry object is simply

As the editor I thought the description for the table object (ipAddressTable)
covered the entry object as well and therefore repeating the same text would
not be useful. Do you think there is something else that should be added to
the description of the entry that isn't in the description of the table?

DESCRIPTION
           "This table contains addressing information relevant to the
            entity's interfaces.

            This table does not contain multicast address information.
            Tables for such information should be contained in multicast
            specific MIBs such as RFC3019.

            Note well: When including IPv6 link-local addresses in this
            table the entry must use an InetAddressType of 'ipv6z' in
            order to differentiate between the possible interfaces."

>changes to just making the documents support IPv6.  Though, we did break

As with Brian I don't recall this specific topic being discussed.

Shawn A. Routhier
SMTS 
Wind River Networks Business Unit
510 749 2095 office 
510 749 2560 fax
www.windriver.com

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:57:08 -0800

>>>>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:04:26 -0800, "Shawn  A. Routhier" <[email-masked]> said:

>>> 1) The description field for the ipAddressEntry object is simply

Shawn> As the editor I thought the description for the table object
Shawn> (ipAddressTable) covered the entry object as well and therefore
Shawn> repeating the same text would not be useful. Do you think there
Shawn> is something else that should be added to the description of
Shawn> the entry that isn't in the description of the table?

"Internet address entry" would have been better.  As is, it just
appears as if the author was in a huge hurry.  Have about: "An address
mapping for a particular interface."?

>>> 2) Was there every discussion about making this table writable?
...
>> I don't recall this specific topic being discussed.

Shawn> As with Brian I don't recall this specific topic being
Shawn> discussed.

Well, then my next question would then be: Is it too late to do this?
It would basically just mean:

1) making ipAddressIfIndex, ipAddressType, & ipAddressPrefix
   MAX-ACCESS clauses read "read-create".

2) Adding a new column: "ipAddressRowStatus" of type RowStatus.

3) Maybe changing the conformance statements to allow the
   optionality of the writable aspect of it.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:53:55 +0100

>    optionality of the writable aspect of it.

You probably also want to have a StorageType column for this.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

---

From: "Shawn A. Routhier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:14:17 -0800

>Well, then my next question would then be: Is it too late to do this?

I suppose that's up to the chairs and the WG.  The document has finished
WG last call, I don't know if these changes would require a new last call
or not.

>   optionality of the writable aspect of it.

I think there's a little more - as Juergen pointed out there is the
storage type.  There may also need to be more text about default values
(or the lack of them) when creating a row as well as the required fields
for creating a row.

Shawn A. Routhier
SMTS