Re: Psudo WG Last Call for: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft -ietf-ops-taddress-mib-02.txt

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

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> Some comments/questions from me: 

Bert> - the TC for TransportAddressLocal, would it not be good to have
Bert> comment that maybe it SHOULD NOT be used directly (just like the
Bert> other ones)?

OK. I have copied the text.

Bert> - that same TC, should you mention something about the MUST use
Bert> a SIZE to limit length if used as index?

OK. I have copied the text from the TC.

Bert> - I wonder if the comment just before TransportAddressType would
Bert> not be better put within the DESCRIPTION claise of that TC?

My intention here was to remind the MIB editor (me at the moment, but
that might change) to keep these definitions somewhat aligned. The
intention was not to tell everyone that these will necessarily be
aligned. Hence, I thought a comment would be appropriate rather than
text in the description clause. But I am flexible - if people prefer
this text in the DESCRIPTION clause, fine with me. Who has a strong
opinion about this?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>