Hi Joan, If you have a minute could you comment as to: 1. Is the subject Errata correct? 2. If so, does it have any consequence other than editorial content? It doesn't appear to me that any MIB tools have complained about it.
Thanks, Acee On Jul 23, 2012, at 5:21 AM, RFC Errata System wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4750, > "OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4750&eid=3292 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Michael Kirkham <[email protected]> > > Section: 5 > > Original Text > ------------- > ospfTrapCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE > STATUS obsolete > DESCRIPTION > "The compliance statement." > MODULE -- this module > MANDATORY-GROUPS { ospfTrapControlGroup } > > GROUP ospfTrapControlGroup > DESCRIPTION > "This group is optional but recommended for all > OSPF systems." > ::= { ospfTrapCompliances 1 } > > Corrected Text > -------------- > ospfTrapCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE > STATUS obsolete > DESCRIPTION > "The compliance statement." > MODULE -- this module > GROUP ospfTrapControlGroup > DESCRIPTION > "This group is optional but recommended for all > OSPF systems." > ::= { ospfTrapCompliances 1 } > > Notes > ----- > ospfTrapControlGroup is listed both in the MANDATORY-GROUPS clause and in a > GROUP clause. Per RFC 2580, Conformance Statements for SMIv2 (brackets added > to indicate pertinent rule): > > "5.4.2. Mapping of the GROUP clause > > The GROUP clause, which need not be present, is repeatedly used to > name each object and notification group which is conditionally > mandatory for compliance to the MIB module. The GROUP clause can > also be used to name unconditionally optional groups. [A group named > in a GROUP clause must be absent from the correspondent MANDATORY- > GROUPS clause.]" > > It is listed in both clauses in RFC 1850 as well (which RFC 4750 obsoletes). > It is STATUS current in RFC 1850 and STATUS obsolete in 4750; however, > obsolete or not, it is not legal according to SMI rules. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC4750 (draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-11) > -------------------------------------- > Title : OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base > Publication Date : December 2006 > Author(s) : D. Joyal, Ed., P. Galecki, Ed., S. Giacalone, Ed., R. > Coltun, F. Baker > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
