Re: [Netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring-09 last call comments from js

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de>
> To: "Phil Shafer" <phil at juniper.net>
> Cc: <netconf at ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring-09 last call comments from js
...
> > And given the number of mib implementors that seem to not read the
> > rfc, just the mib, I'd vote to have all real text live within the
> > yang module.
> 
> We both agree on the principle - I just disagree with your citation of
> RFC 3412 in an attempt to prove me wrong that the SMIv2 practice has
> been for a long time to have MIB modules self-contained.

I agree with Juergen.  Yes, the stuff relevant to management should be
in the MIB module.  However, most RFCs with MIBs describe a system or
protocol that actually *does* something other than just sit around and be
managed, and many of these operational characteristics are not (and should
not) be subject to management control or monitoring.  Such information does
not belong in a MIB module.

Randy