[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: DS MIB - please review this list...
- To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
- Subject: RE: DS MIB - please review this list...
- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:20:01 +0100
- Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, Michael Daniele <daniele@zk3.dec.com>, Brian Haberman <haberman@nortelnetworks.com>, Shawn Routhier <sar@epilogue.com>, mibs@ops.ietf.org, khchan@nortelnetworks.com, nichols@packetdesign.com, andrew@allegronetworks.com
- Delivery-date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:21:14 -0800
- Envelope-to: mibs-data@psg.com
I strongly recommend that we go with the rules (the MUSTs)
as specified in RFC2851.
However, if you really do not want to go with those
rules... then we should have a debate on the mibs mailing list
to get the rules changed and specify the situations in which
such rules may be ignored.
Bert
> ----------
> From: Fred Baker[SMTP:fred@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:24 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder; fenner@research.att.com; daniele@zk3.dec.com;
> haberman@nortelnetworks.com; sar@epilogue.com; mibs@ops.ietf.org;
> khchan@nortelnetworks.com; nichols@packetdesign.com;
> andrew@allegronetworks.com
> Subject: Re: DS MIB - please review this list...
>
> At 03:00 PM 2/27/2001 -0600, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >However as I said before, I think we'd better accept the conventional
> >wisdom, even though it's weak computer science IMHO.
>
> As you wish... Weak CS and all.
>
>