RE: [AVT] Comments on draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02

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

Aha... great. 
Thanks Juergen for reminding me we should not just force
exact boiler plate where it is more of a CLR-type thing than
a real problem.  By now I have had some more sleep. And it is
also now weekend... so maybe that is why I am less nit-picky
today ;-)

I think then what we may want to do is to update the mib-boiler-plate
page to suggest either of those 2 forms and explain why the current
form is there (history), that both forms are correct, and that
maybe we should recommend to use the more clearer form.

I will prepare the new mib-boiler-plate text after which I will
allow for critique.

If anyone have any further comments/opinions now, pls do send

Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de]
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 00:11
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Magnus Westerlund; ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [AVT] Comments on draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:08:51PM +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 
> > I can't recall from the top of my head why we did it this
> > way (certainly right now after a long IETF week).
> > 
> > Maybe we inherited it from the time when we had to describe
> > the SMI using a STD and some informational RFCs.
> 
> Yes, this is the reason why this notation was invented quite some time
> ago and it survived until today (even though the reason has gone). I
> never liked this notation - and I doubt very much that the causual
> reader ever understood the fine details behind it.
> 
> Both formats and IMHO correct and I would simply let the authors
> decide which citation style they prefer as long as they say the right
> thing.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 
> 28725 Bremen, Germany
>