[Adslmib] two questions on draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-10

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ed,

The I-D draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-10 was approved by the IESG with
'point raised'. This means that I would like to get clarification from
you (and the WG if needed) on a couple of points before approving the
document. 

The two questions derive from the COMMENT entered by Adrian Farrel. They
are non-blocking from his perspective, yet I think that they are
interesting enough to deserve being answered, even if they do not lead
to changes in the document. 

1.  How likely is it that new bonding schemes (i.e. other
technologies) will come along and be handled by this MIB module without
extensions? I think the intention is that this module is technology-
independent, so that it would not need to be revised for a new bonding
type.

However, GBondSchemeList and GBondScheme are closed lists such that you
would need to revise the module to support new technologies. That seems
a shame.

You could move the TCs into a separate module so that only that module
needs to be revised.

An alternative, is to define an IANA Textual convention for this and
allow just the TC to be updated as necessary.
                         
---                     

2. I find the presence of 'unknown' as a bit in GBondSchemeList to be a
bit
odd. In general, bits in an object with a Syntax of Bits can be 
independently set. But here you could not set 'unknown' and any of the
other bits.

On the other hand, what would it mean to return the object with none of
the bits set? Is that different from returning the 'unknown' bit?

Please address these two questions. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan