On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:58:46PM +0100, Johannes Merkle wrote: > I am not sure, how to resolve this comment. Please give advice. > > Juergen Schoenwaelder schrieb am 20.02.2015 um 17:49: > > - The comment behind LAST-UPDATED is wrong (this happens once > > there is redundant information) > > Shouldn't the dates specified in LAST-UPDATED and REVISION be the publication > date of the RFC? In this case, I would > need to add place holders with comments for the RFC Ed to replace them with > the publication date. Or should these dates > be set to the date when the MIB was finally prepared (neglecting editorial > changes by the RFC Ed? >
Ideally it is the publication date (or more precisely the date when the final edits were made by the RFC Editor). They usually understand this for MIB modules but it never hurts to be explicit (and the check during AUTH48 as well). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
