Re: Last Call: Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Basefor High Capacity Networks to Proposed Standard

[Steve Waldbusser <waldbusser@nextbeacon.com>]

"C. M. Heard" wrote:

> I'm still not convinced that it is a good idea to update MIB modules by
> publishing MIB module fragments as normative text.  The fact that there
> is a cut-and-paste process to make a compilable updated MIB module leaves
> room for error, and I'm not completely comfortable with that. 

Given that the updated MIB module is made available as well, I can't see
why anyone would do it themself. I don't mean to accept your premise
that this is error-prone, but really, why would anyone do it by hand?

> - first, quickly decide whether to proceed with the publication as
> announced in the last call, or whether to revert instead to the
> traditional procedure and publish updated versions of the RMON-MIB
> and RMON2-MIB in new RFCs (which I think was the WG's original plan).

It wasn't the original plan, it was the second plan. This is the third
plan.


Steve