C. M. Heard <heard <at> pobox.com>
2005-02-23 08:44:28 GMT
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Clay Sikes wrote:
[ ... overview of changes snipped ... ]
> Next, I'm asking for two things:
> 1. Look over the changes and make sure I didn't break anything.
> I especially need Bert, Randy, and Mike to review the changes.
All of my review comments seem to have been addressed. I
particularly commend the effort that you put into the Security
Considerations section; it looks like a lot of thought went into
that. The work that you put into the section on notification
throttling is also appreciated. As for the formatting/editorial
changes, it all looks for the better ... I did not see anything
that got broken.
> 2. Before we push this draft any further, I would like to propose
> a significant change to the draft and am looking for anyone
> who thinks the proposal is a bad idea. I would like to break
> out the TCs such that they are in a separate TC-MIB module.
> The reason is that it has taken a lot of time to update this
> MIB module to support G.shdsl.bis. If there needs to be a
> future update, and the annex list is a concern, the change may
> go faster if only a TC Module needs to be updated. This would
> require at least another spin of the draft along with creating
> a dependency. In anyone feels that this a bad idea, please
> let me know. I will not move forward on this if the group
> feels it's a bad idea.
Unfortunately, moving TCs (or other any definitions) to a different
MIB module breaks backward compatibility with any MIB modules
(including, possibly, enterprise MIB modules) that IMPORT those TCs
from HDSL2-SHDSL-LINE-MIB. For this reason, it is usually not
considered acceptable to move definitions from one MIB module to
another. See RFC 2578, Section 10, next-to-last paragraph on p. 37.