Re: Pseudo WG Last Call for: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-taddress-mib-02.txt

[sar@epilogue.com]

Hi all,

Re: Ipv4OrIpv6 discussion

After thinking about this for a while I've concluded that I agree
with Juergen - that by the time one of these objects is instantiated
you have a concrete address to use.  The case that I was considering
was if an application wants to open a port on all addresses associated
with the node.  In this case there might be a small value to being able
to represent both v4 and v6 at the same time.  However I don't think
that the value is worth the effort that would be required.  I think that
requiring the application to insert two addresses (one for v4 and one for
v6) is acceptable.

I was wondering if it would be reasonable to add some more text to
describe this possibility.

Re: global addresses in non-global formats

I've been assuming that I would be able to represent a global address
in one of the non-global formats (xxxIpv6z).  However after reading
some of the discussion I'm not so sure.  What is the intention of the
draft?

And one new issue:

The description of TransportAddress makes it sound like there
must be a TransportAddressType or TransportDomain object associated
with the TransportAddress type.  Is this what is intended or can
a MIB pre-define an object to be of a specific type? (which is what some
of the other text seems to allow).


regards,
sar