[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MIB topic in draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt
> From: "C. M. Heard" <email@example.com>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: "Mreview (E-mail)" <email@example.com>; "Ipv6mib (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:36 PM
> Subject: Re: MIB topic in draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt
> I don't understand the objection. The MIB module in question is (or
> should be) the one in draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt. That
> module has two current compliance statements,
> ipForwardFullCompliance and ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance, neither of
> which requires support for any IPv4-specific portions of the MIB
> module. They require only support for version-neutral objects.
> All of the IPv4-specific objects have been deprecated, and so have
> the compliance statements which require them. What's the problem?
Thanks for the helping dispel some of my confusion. However,
Bert's message referred to draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt.
I'll be satisfied if the update to draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt
explicitly references ipForwardFullCompliance or
ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance. Otherwise, there's a possibility for
confusion with ipForwardCompliance from 2096, which does require
the IPv4 stuff.
> I believe that the same can be said of 2011bis, but I don't know
> that document as well as 2096bis.
I just want the documents to specifically identify which compliance
statements are required or recommended.