[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: snmpconf "bcp" Version 11 published



At 02:41 PM 1/3/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

>Wayne, pls post your list of the suggested split, so we can check.

I did that.  Since I haven't heard any specific feedback, I'm going with 
what I last posted, *with one exception*.  In carefully looking, MIBs in 
RFC 2011/3418 have been used in a strictly informative/demonstrative 
fashion, hence 3418 goes to the informative set.  Did I say 3418?  Oh yeah...


>Wayne, it would also be much better to change the references to the
>SNMP documents to the new RFC341x range.

Done.



>We have also more or less agreed on a new new MIB boilerplate
>that you may want to check....

a) I cannot get to this site either
b) Since this has already undergone last calls, conversion to Informative, 
and submission to IESG, and what you reference is "new new" and "more or 
less" agreed on,
c) this is *Informative*, and not presenting any standards track MIB,
d) this is consistent with the prior boilerplate
e) I'd like to submit a new version today :).

Therefore I'd like to punt on this particular one.

I'll resubmit with these changes otherwise.  Oh, and I have access to the 
tiac.net website again, I'll let you know when I have the new -11 up there.

If you have an issue with this, let me know, well, *the next 30 minutes* 
would be nice. :)

Regards,
Wayne

>   http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html
>
>although right at this moment I seem unable to access myself.
>
>Bert
>
> >
> > /jon
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jon Saperia [mailto:saperia@jdscons.com]
> > > > Sent: donderdag 2 januari 2003 15:16
> > > > To: snmpconf@snmp.com; Randy Bush; Wayne F. Tackabury
> > > > Cc: snmpconf@snmp.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
> > > > wanted.
> > > >
> > > > /jon
> > > > --
> > > > Jon Saperia
> > > >
> > > > saperia@jdscons.com
> > > > Phone: 978-461-0249
> > > > Fax:   617-249-0874
> > > > http://www.jdscons.com/
> >
> > --
> > Jon Saperia
> >
> > saperia@jdscons.com
> > Phone: 978-461-0249
> > Fax:   617-249-0874
> > http://www.jdscons.com/
> >