RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-03.txt (Alex Ruzin) Sun, 26 May 2002 06:19 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16586 for <>; Sun, 26 May 2002 02:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id CAA23744 for; Sun, 26 May 2002 02:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA23735; Sun, 26 May 2002 02:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA23704 for <>; Sun, 26 May 2002 02:19:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16559; Sun, 26 May 2002 02:19:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Alexr ([]) by (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-44418U200L2S100) with SMTP id AAA643; Sun, 26 May 2002 09:23:52 +0200
Reply-To: <>
From: (Alex Ruzin)
To: "'Rohit Rohit'" <>, "'Michael MacFaden'" <>, <>
Cc: <>
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-03.txt
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 09:20:20 +0200
Message-ID: <005001c20485$cc2c4510$87885ac2@Alexr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0051_01C20496.8FB51510"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <917063BAB0DDB043AF5FAA73C7A835D417302F@windlord.WWP.COM>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 000000000B849FA1C974D211B9A800AA00BD851E640DE304
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>

OK, OK, OK...
Actually I only meant to make the definition for this
object *semantically* better. Are you agree with my proposition
"in general", except "MAX-ACCESS"? Do you think, that definition
of this object has to be improved?
If so, I propose

    dot1dStpPortEnable OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX      INTEGER {
        MAX-ACCESS  read-write
        STATUS      current
            "'Force Port State' of the port. Both GET and GETNEXT operation
              always return value dummyReadValue(0). An attempt to write the
             dummyReadValue(0) must cause an error."
            "IEEE 802.1D-1998: Section"
        ::= { dot1dStpPortEntry 4 }

Your comments and/or proposition, please?

On Thursday, May 23, 2002 8:16 PM Michael MacFaden wrote:
Michael > See RFC 2578 page 9, in SMIv2 MAX-ACCESS does not support 
Michael > "write-only "

On Thursday, May 23, 2002 8:21 PM Rohit Rohit wrote:
Rohit>   I have never heard of "MAX-ACCESS  write-only"
Rohit>   I have heard it to be read-only; read-write or read-create.