RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-03.txt

[[e-mail] (Alex Ruzin)]

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 {
                        dummyReadValue(0),
                        forceBlock(1),
                        forceDisable(2) 
                   }
        MAX-ACCESS  read-write
        STATUS      current
        DESCRIPTION
            "'Force Port State' of the port. Both GET and GETNEXT operation
              always return value dummyReadValue(0). An attempt to write the
value
             dummyReadValue(0) must cause an error."
        REFERENCE
            "IEEE 802.1D-1998: Section 14.8.2.2"
        ::= { dot1dStpPortEntry 4 }

Your comments and/or proposition, please?
Alex

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.