Re: [Isms] tmsm pre-16 - mandatory transport model

[Dave Shield <D.T.Shield at liverpool.ac.uk>]

2009/1/23 Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de>:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:43:13PM -0500, David Harrington wrote:
>
>> I think I have covered all the WGLC comments.
>
> Can the WG members please review the changes?

One issue which I don't think has ever been discussed:

In section 3.2.1, para 4 states:

       To encourage a basic level of interoperability, IETF standards
   typically require one mandatory-to-implement specification, with the
   capability of adding new mechanisms in the future.....

(and then goes on to talk about the implications of this for any
given transport model).

Does the same thing apply to the SNMP Transport Subsystem as
a whole?  Is there a mandatory transport model?   If so, what?

Even if this is simply a conceptual transport model based on
the standard UDP transport mapping (i.e. RFC3417), it might
be sensible to state this explicitly here.

Dave