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

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

On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 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?

Sounds good -- it's clear, and accurate.

//cmh