On Feb 25, 2015, at 8:58 AM, Johannes Merkle <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 1) To be clear, I interpret section 9.2 which states: >> At the time of this writing, >> to mean the date when the document is published. > > Yes, but IMHO this is obvious and does not require further clarification.
Good, just confirming. But obvious to one is not always obvious to another imo. > 2) Per > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trac.tools.ietf.org_area_ops_trac_wiki_mib-2Dsecurity&d=AwID-g&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=yK0D6Un7Scv4gg9WMTtDbQ&m=piI9X6SNFjQ9dT0MJsVL5FHAInIjRv7Fbs9wGm3sjP8&s=oqNQnXfIgQvTeG7o8SJ6SOSkAcmUk4_ZZN8ts-dy0_o&e= > >> the boiler plate text to add here would be the clause starting with the >> sentence “There are no management objects.” but would change >> “textual conventions” to “oid value assignments" >> > > Isn't that essentially the same statement as the current text in Section 9.4? True, I just searched for the boilerplate. The mib module simply registers object identifier values using OBJECT IDENTITY. >> 3) There exist rfc normative references listed in the above url boilerplate >> not included in the draft >> typically used in rfcs containing mib modules. > > Well, if we use the text you referred to (“There are no management > objects...” ), or even keep the current text in 9.4, > no references are needed, right? Right no need to list references you don’t reference. I bring them up so that if you may see what is usually added and then you determine if needed or not. Mike MacFaden _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
