Subject: RE: MAU MIB open issues 4 and 5

From: John Flick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:23:33 -0800 (PST)

Andrew Smith writes:
 > 
 > 
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: John Flick [mailto:[email-masked]]
 > > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 5:08 PM
 > > To: [email-masked]
 > > Subject: MAU MIB open issues
 > > 
 > On issue 4, I think we should get the MIB out as RFC a.s.a.p., then think
 > about advancing to draft later on. I do not think we should delay publishing
 > as an RFC for this reason.

Personally, I suggest just changing the STATUS clause to 'deprecated'
on the broadMauBasicTable, since it is unlikely this will ever be
implemented.  I don't believe this introduces any delay, since we need 
to do another turn on the document anyway.

 > On issue 5, I think we should allow read-only MIN-ACCESS for those objects
 > that were identified as having 1 or fewer read-write implementations in the
 > RFC2239 survey. I think that would include just rpMauStatus.

I went back and looked at rpMauStatus and ifMauStatus.  Both these
objects idicate in their DESCRIPTION clauses that they may be
imlpemented read-only (text that goes back to RFC1515), but this is
not reflected in the compliance.  I believe this was an oversight, and
should be corrected by allowing both to be MIN-ACCESS read-only.

John

---

From: Andrew Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:13:50 -0800

OK with me on both counts.

Andrew

> Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 1:24 PM
> Subject: RE: MAU MIB open issues 4 and 5
> 
> 
> Andrew Smith writes:
>  > 
>  >