On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:42 PM, C. M. Heard <[email protected]> wrote: > My guess would be that the only reason for not republishing these > MIB modules as obsolete was the work involved, but since you have > shouldered the burden, it seems to me like a good thing.
That was my hope :-) > That said, > I am by no means sure that everyone would agree :-) > > As for venue, it seems to me that opsawg is arguably more appriate > than 6man, so I have cc:'d that WG. > Thanks; that hadn't occurred to me. I would like to make two small suggestions on the document itself: > > - please change the occurrences of "Deprecating this MIB" to > "Obsoleting this MIB module" in the REVISION clauses (and if it's > not too much trouble, try to hunt down any other occurrences of > "this MIB", "these MIBs" etc. and change them to "this MIB > module", "these MIB modules", and so on. > Sure, thanks for the correction. - it seems that it would be a good idea to have the metadata for the > four obsolete RFCs indicate that they are obsoleted by the RFCs > containing the replacement MIB modules AND this document as well, > changing section 7 to something substantive that would remain. > I'm fine with changing section 7 to something that would remain (I wrote it that way because I thought that we would have a companion document for the reclassification, but I realized later that procedure is to be used when you *don't* have another document to use). However, are you sure it'd be useful for this document to be referred to in the RFC index for the historic RFCs? It seems like it'd just add a level of indirection, since this document says "go see the other RFC4xxx documents". Bill
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
