[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
We didn't include the IPv6 objects that are effectively deprecated
in the IP mib (RFC2011) update either. We did include the previous
I don't have a strong opinion on this topic but would be unhappy with
anything that caused significant changes to the documents already on
the editor's queue.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:21 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Mreview (E-mail); Bill Fenner (E-mail); John Flick
> (E-mail); Margaret Wasserman (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > And wonder if it would not be better to pick up the
> definitions from
> > RFC2454 and change the status to eitehr deprecated or
> obsoleted. That
> > way we create a machine readable form of that status, whereas
> > otherwise that is kind of vague.
> > I have no strong opinion on it.
> > So I would appreciate input from ther MIB Doctor team and/or the
> > authors and responsible AD.
> I also have no strong opinion on this. I would only like to
> point out that a new version of the MIB module from RFC 2454
> with all objects being made deprecated or obsolete was not
> put into draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-06.txt, which was
> approved on March
> 22 and is in the publication queue. It seems to me that we
> should do this thing in both places or neither.