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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Waldbusser [mailto:waldbusser@nextbeacon.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 9:42 AM
> To: C. M. Heard
> Cc: MIBS Mailing List; RMONMIB Mailing List
> Subject: [RMONMIB] Re: Last Call: Remote Network Monitoring Management
> Information Basefor High Capacity Networks to Proposed Standard
> 
> 
> 
> "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?
> 
Exactly, and that is why we want to put them in a RFC-editor mainatined
respository. So we have a well known place for them.

> > - 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.
> 
I suggest that we for now assume that we go forward with the publication
as announced in the last call. As AD I have discussed this with RFC-Editor,
IESG members and document authors and WG chair.

If we need to do something to the conpliance statements, then let us focus
on that.

Bert