On 25/06/15 12:55, Benoit Claise wrote:
On 23/06/2015 22:42, Ben Campbell wrote:
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-03: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the following as a question, because it's something I've never
thought about, but seems odd: Is it normal to have 2119 language in the
description fields in a MIB definition? Who is that language intended
for?
I've seen that before.
I don't think that's an issue.
In my view, it is OK to use rfc2119 language to describe specific required
behaviour
for a specific object.
It is not ok to use rfc2119 lnguage to indicate if an object msut/should/or may
be
supported. That needs to be defined in the MODULE COMPLIANCE section of a MIB
module.
my 2 cents
Bert
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
