RE: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-02.txt: Reusable vs. Implemented definitions (was concrete vs. abstract)

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:08 PM
> 
<snip>
> 
> 52: We believe that 4.2.3 should be an accepted requirement and be
>     moved to section 4.1. We need to be able to distinguish between
>     reusable definitions and "final" definitions that should not be
>     further refined.
> 
[Dave] As I recall, Wes had an issue with abstract vs. concrete and
understanding what it means w/ respect to a MIB. I don't recall him saying
it was a bad idea to differentiate between the two, however. So, unless
someone comes forward against moving this back to an accepted requirement
(going once, going twice...)