[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: snmpconf "bcp" Version 11 published
WQhy doesn't wayne post a suggested set of normative and informative
references, so we can take a quick look to check how we feel
about them. It seems to me that several SNMP documents (RFCs) are
a MUST read on irder to be able to understand this document.
There are possibly others. And there are certainly quite a few that
are nice background info, but not REQUIRED reading. For example,
the pttrs to documents that contain the MIB-fragment that is
being used as an example, those probably contain good background
info, but I beleiev the the bcp doc itself has enough context
about the example that such doc is not normative.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Saperia [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: donderdag 2 januari 2003 15:16
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Randy Bush; Wayne F. Tackabury
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: snmpconf "bcp" Version 11 published
> On Monday 30 December 2002 10:27 pm, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > -- The "references" section is now called "Informative
> > > References". This is consistent with the notion that this is to
> > > be an Informational RFC, and has no particular pronouncements on
> > > its own.
> > uh, to be precise, any of the references which MUST be read to
> > understand this document are normative, not informational.
> > randy
> Do you have a specific suggestion for changing the title of
> the section?
> If not, we can leave it alone or change back to just
> 'references' as in
> previous draft which I assume could be done by the RFC editor if you
> Jon Saperia
> Phone: 978-461-0249
> Fax: 617-249-0874