[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf taxonomy discussion(s) - suggested resolution
David, the working group had a discussion of whether to call this a BCP. in
March. At that time we did not find a compelling reason to change it. Unless
you can find some compelling reason that convinces the working group to the
contrary we will issue it for last call as a BCP.
It reasonably falls into section 5 of RFC2026 which describes a BCP document.
There are extant BCPs whose nature is how to apply a protocol or standard.
That is what this is.
> I'm not sure what is really to happen...
> There are comments as to what the resulting document
> should be, and that does not appear to be addressed
> by the announcement by the chair.
> I suggest that that resulting document be an Informational
> document or possibly even Experimental, with title
> "Suggestions for Designing MIB Modules
> to Allow Configuration Management via SNMP Operations".
> The document is not a BCP, since it suggest approaches, many
> of which are not used in MIB module design.
> At 10:27 AM 8/27/2001 +0200, David Partain wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >Regarding my suggestion to remove the taxonomy from the BCP
> >as well as references to it in the PM MIB, I believe that
> >everyone's had a chance to object and no one has.
> >The Gavel Bangs. Done. The editors understand the edits :-)
> >David & Jon
> /david t. perkins
Jon Saperia email@example.com