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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> C M Heard writes:

Mike> 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.

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

The purpose of this sentence is to say that people SHOULD be using
InetAddressType, InetAddress, InetAddressPrefixLength instead of
concreate TCs such as InetAddressIPv6, InetAddressIPv6z and so on.

The original version of this sentence did not make this intention
clear. So rather going back to the original sentence, I propose to add
InetPrefixLength:

   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 and
   InetAddressPrefixLength textual conventions defined in this memo.

Does this make sense?

/js