Med,
* In the TOC, all the OLD / NEW section names are distracting. It would be much
more readable if the TOC was limited to just two levels:
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Why An RFC is Needed for These Updates? . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Update the Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. sourceTransportPort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. destinationTransportPort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. forwardingStatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Is this not possible?
* 6.11.2 NEW
Please append [RFC5102
[iana.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/go/rfc5102__;!!OSsGDw!JNH0CYLK4vjkABu-cFwUmkIE5CBNlemiA4NBseRFoWxSRTTB9y5yUwj2nT9VV_EvrAwtuqT3ANY2CkyFV-zmjrvn$>]
here.
For the methods parameters, Information Elements are defined in the information
model document [RFC5102].
[Med] OK as that was the intent at the time. However, given that 5102 is
obsoleted, should we simply point to the registry itself instead of 5102?
Yes please, that seems good.
6.22.2. NEW
Typo: remove "at" in the registry name:
See mibCaptureTimeSemanticsat registry at
P.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
