Re: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-02.txt: Strange Import Rules

[David Harrington <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Hi,

I have a bit of a concern moving 4.3.17 to a requirement. The
description is rather unclear, and as a result it is unclear what the
requirement would be. While I agree that we should try to fix the
problem, and it deserves reasonably high priority, I think this
description needs to be rewritten to be clear what the proposed
requirement is. 

I think the note is the clearest expression of the proposed requirement,
so removing the note seems like a bad idea, although removing the first
two sentences of the note may be a good idea.

dbh

"Durham, David" wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:08 PM
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > 4.3.17 ...
> > 69: We believe this belongs to section 4.1. The argument that this is
> >     a no-brainer does not hold since SMIv2 and SPPI both suffer from
> >     strange import rules. We suggest to remove the Notes.
> 
> [Dave] As I recall, people were confused as to what the problem was here...
> Probably because few people really understand how the current import
> mechanisms work. Nevertheless, I don't see any objections to avoiding stupid
> import scenarios. It would be helpful to list what exactly these "strange
> import rules" are. Anyone have an objection to moving 4.3.17 back to a
> requirement?