Re: draft-ietf-ops-rfc2851-update-05.txt last call summary

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Also, in the beginning of the document, the following paragraph
> 
>      MIB developers who need to represent Internet addresses SHOULD use
>      these definitions whenever applicable, as opposed to defining their
>      own constructs.  Even MIB modules that only need to represent IPv4 or
>      IPv6 addresses SHOULD use the textual conventions defined in this
>      memo.
> 
> should be replaced with:
> 
>      MIB developers who need to represent Internet addresses SHOULD use
>      these definitions whenever applicable, as opposed to defining their
>      own constructs.  Even MIB modules that only need to represent IPv4 or
>      IPv6 addresses SHOULD use the InetAddressType/InetAddress textual
>      conventions defined in this memo.

I think the original text is actually more accurate, since you now have
an InetAddressPrefixLength TC also.

Mike