[OPS-NM] RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] Mandatory Requirement for configuration by SNMP

I can live with a a MUST allow for SNMP config, if that is
what the WG consciously decided for (has consensus on).

I saw DBH comment too. I can also live with a SHOULD,
but it does make the potential interoperability less sure.
The reason DBH mentions sounds fine, but they can always
relax (i.e. update the RFC0 if/when in the future we have
a new/other/alternative/better protocol available.

my 2 cents

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 09:37
> To: MIB Doctors; ops-nm@ietf.org
> Cc: Mark Townsley
> Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] Mandatory Requirement for 
> configuration by SNMP 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to hear the opinion of the MIB Doctors and OPS-NM folks
> concerning the following. The Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)
> framework document
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ancp-framework-
> 00.txt has
> a management-related requirements section (Section 6) which is quite
> nice. The issue is that the section includes MUST requirements for
> configuration by SNMP. 
> 
> Is this what we want at this stage of evolution of the IETF management
> protocols, or should we advice them to do something different? 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
> 

_______________________________________________
OPS-NM mailing list
OPS-NM@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm