Subject: PMP> RE: Print MIB 09

From: "Bergman, Ron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:52:35 -0800

David and Bert,
 
Looks like we just have one issue still partially open.
 
The WG has already discussed the addition of text to explain why
prtAlertIndex is broken.  In fact is is presently being drafted.  We are
still not sure if this object must be "not-accessible" or can we change to
"read-only".  Since with many compilers the MIB must be modified to
"read-only", the WG prefers to change the MAX-ACCESS clause.  The addition
of a new group and conformance statements, in this case, is agreed.
 
Also, I have not seen any feedback on our resposes to the Finisher MIB.  Did
you receive the email last Friday?
 
    Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Harrington, David [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:06 PM
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Bergman, Ron
Cc: Harry Lewis (E-mail); Ray Casterline (E-mail); [email-masked]'; Patrik
Faltstrom; Ned Freed; Juergen Schoenwaelder; Ira McDonald (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Print MIB 09

Hi, 

> 
> > > The fourth issue is more complicated but we have decided 
> to change 
> > > this object to read-only so that users do not have to edit the MIB 
> 
> I think I am willing to buy your justification that you 
> have many interoperable implementations based on 1759, 
> and so I would leave it as it is in 1759. 
> As I said... it depends on how much push back we get on IETF 
> Last Call. 

I recommend explaining the justification for keeping it "broken" in the
comments in the document, so the reasoning is readily apparent during the
IETF Last Call. You might also want to mention that the AD and his reviewers
recommended this approach.

> > > 
> > Dave, maybe you are confused with the label ...V1Alert. 
> > I think what they are doing is make sure that the one-but-last subID 
> > of the notification OID is zero. That looks fine to me. 

OK 

dbh