RE: Updating the MIB boilerplate

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Juergen asnwers/asks me:

> Bert> I have also looked at this, and it seems that one line sentence
> Bert> to point to Section 7 of rfc2570bis would do the job (or so I
> Bert> think). As far as I am concerned, that can even be an
> Bert> informative reference.
> 
> Bert> I would think that in many cases we will continue to need
> Bert> normative references to RFC2578/2579/2580 cause people almost
> Bert> always import stuff from those 3 documents.
> 
> So why did we classify all the SNMP references with the existing
> boilerplate as normative? What is the logic of removing normative
> references when you revise a document and replace the boilerplate?
> 
Well, I have had many many complaints that the extensive boilerplate
we have used for the last few years is "just bureaucratic overhead".

The MIB should (more or less) be SNMP version independent, but for sure,
as soon as we see SNMPv3 at STD, and the other SNMP versions declared
historic, then we could just refence SMIv2 and SNMPv3. But it is quite
a list of references... And they are nicely listed in 2570bis sect 7.

Now... was you question intended to ask if that ref to 2570bis
should be normative?

Or is the question intended to ask if we should add the SNMPv3 documents
in the boiler plate (with normative references)?

Bert