Re: [OSPF] RE: inconsistency in draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-11.txt?

Dan,

Daniel Joyal wrote:
> Lou,
>
> It is inconsistent. Thanks for catching this.
> I don't think there is a reason to make Opaque
> LSA support configurable as it is a backwards
> compatible extension to OSPF, so the verbiage
> about persistence should be deleted.
>
> Any objections?
>   
FWIW, this would be my preference.

Thanks,
Acee
> -Dan 
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:07 PM
>> To: Joyal, Daniel (BL60:SF23); pgalecki@airvana.com; 
>> spencer.giacalone@csfb.com
>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>> Subject: inconsistency in draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-11.txt?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So, the following is taken from your draft:
>>     ospfOpaqueLsaSupport  OBJECT-TYPE
>>           SYNTAX       TruthValue
>>           MAX-ACCESS   read-only
>>           STATUS       current
>>           DESCRIPTION
>>              "The router's support for Opaque LSA types.
>>
>>               This object is persistent and when written
>>               the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile
>>               storage."
>>           REFERENCE
>>              "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option"
>>           ::= { ospfGeneralGroup 16 }
>>
>> The access and description seem inconsistent.  The 
>> description implies that acess should be "read-write".  Am I 
>> missing something?
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>   

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf