On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:07 AM, t.petch <[email protected]> wrote: > The RFC long predate RFC4181, or indeed our guidelines for RFC in > general, so you are committing e.g. to tracking down the authors and > updating their contact details, into splitting the references into > Normative and Informative etc etc. >
No, I am not proposing republishing these RFCs. I am proposing republishing the modules, with a simple wrapper saying why, in a single document. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fenner-ipv6-mibs-obsolete, which contains all the modules I mentioned, with the STATUS changed to "obsolete" and the DESCRIPTION updated with an explanation as required by RFC2578. The change of status may be a single bulk edit but it changes many many > lines in the module with the scope for introducing errors. > I have re-extracted the modules from my I-D and run "smilint" against them, and it reports no errors (other than those in the original modules). I also have reviewed the diffs that I created and published at http://fenner.github.io/ipv6-mibs-historic/ to try to catch any unintentional changes. > And any MIB Module is expensive in terms of IETF effort needed for > review by MIB Doctor, at Last Call, by ADs etc. > How much review is needed for "change status of this object to obsolete and update the DESCRIPTION"? The rules about making sure that MIBs are good ideas to implement presumably don't apply to objects whose metadata says "do not implement this object". Bill
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
