Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:47:33 -0400, "G. S. Marzot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>
> G> I think I still vote 4) ... one of the very reasons being that some
> G> people don't know the errata exists...and I don't think anyone we
> G> care about will think we are idiots
see below for answer...
but oh my...I did not do what I thought I did...applying the errata appears to
need to be done by hand...I thought I had downloaded already patched files...
Now I suppose that we should archive the RFC and errata separately...and let the
interested reader consult the rfc##
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:47:33 -0400, "G. S. Marzot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
G> I think I still vote 4) ... one of the very reasons being that some
G> people don't know the errata exists...and I don't think anyone we
G> care about will think we are idiots for quoting/publishing the th
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:51:28 -0400, "G. S. Marzot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
G> I vote just the RFCs (protocol/smi) too...the extracted MIBs are
G> elsewhere...and not sure how much added value there is in repeating
G> them within the RFCs.
I'd actually think the MIB RFCs would be he
On 27/07/06, G. S. Marzot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Story wrote:
> > Most people don't even realize the errata exists. So if you go about saying
> > "RFC says 'blah'", and 'blah' was part of the errata, then others whoe
> > only have the original RFC (most people) are going to be con
Robert Story wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:08:19 -0400 G. wrote:
> GSM> the benefit of shipping the RFCs is mostly convenience as they can be
> GSM> retrieved elsewhere...of course we should strive to have this element of
> GSM> the documentation be as accurate updated as possible...why would any
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:08:19 -0400 G. wrote:
GSM> the benefit of shipping the RFCs is mostly convenience as they can be
GSM> retrieved elsewhere...of course we should strive to have this element of
GSM> the documentation be as accurate updated as possible...why would anyone
GSM> want the original v
Robert Story wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:32:46 -0400 G. wrote:
> GSM> also noting that the commit I have would contain the most updated
> versions
> GSM> (i.e., +errata).
>
> How many of the RFCs contained errata?
about 6-7...I didn't count exactly
>
> GSM> I think like anything, we would
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:32:46 -0400 G. wrote:
GSM> also noting that the commit I have would contain the most updated versions
GSM> (i.e., +errata).
How many of the RFCs contained errata?
GSM> I think like anything, we would do our best to keep everything as updated
GSM> as possible...
I think thi
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:19:44 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> > Do you think we should include MIB RFCs too?
DS>
DS> Let's start with the protocol RFCs.
DS> We can add other RFCs later if we feel it would be useful.
I agree.
DS> I'd forgotten that we don't already have a docs (or doc) directory.
Me too!
Robert Story wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:11:14 +0100 Dave wrote:
> DS> On 26/07/06, G. S. Marzot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DS> > Thought it might be good idea to add the SNMP rfcs to the distro...
> DS>
> DS> The full RFCs, rather than just the MIB files, you mean?
>
> Actually, it's just
G. S. Marzot wrote:
> another vote for under net-snmp/doc
>
> since the pluralization seems unneeded
>
> the final proposal is
>
> net-snmp/doc/rfc/...
>
> to help prevent carpal-tunnel-syndrome
>
> -G
also noting that the commit I have would contain the most updated versions
(i.e., +errata).
On 27/07/06, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DS> The full RFCs, rather than just the MIB files, you mean?
>
> Actually, it's just the RFCs for the protocol/smi, I think. Not any of the MIB
> RFCs.
>
> Do you think we should include MIB RFCs too?
Let's start with the protocol RFCs.
We can
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:11:14 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> On 26/07/06, G. S. Marzot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DS> > Thought it might be good idea to add the SNMP rfcs to the distro...
DS>
DS> The full RFCs, rather than just the MIB files, you mean?
Actually, it's just the RFCs for the protocol/smi, I t
On 26/07/06, G. S. Marzot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thought it might be good idea to add the SNMP rfcs to the distro...
The full RFCs, rather than just the MIB files, you mean?
Yes - that sounds a good idea to me.
And your proposed structure seems fine.
(I've got my own local copies organised
another vote for under net-snmp/doc
since the pluralization seems unneeded
the final proposal is
net-snmp/doc/rfc/...
to help prevent carpal-tunnel-syndrome
-G
--- Begin Message ---
On 7/27/06, G. S. Marzot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thought it might be good idea to add the SNMP rfcs to the
16 matches
Mail list logo
