OK. The general consensus seems to be that the commented text be moved to the DESCRIPTION clause. I will do that.
I will also propose to leave the text in the "Background" section as it is. It is an important part of the Background. Let me know if there is disagreement. Glenn Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote: > If so, then I would propose to move the text into DESCRIPTION > caluses, and not have them as comment lines. > > Bert Wijnen > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: David B Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Verzonden: donderdag 10 januari 2008 8:47 >> Aan: 'Glenn M. Keeni'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)' >> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Sam Hartman' >> Onderwerp: [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: MIB Doctor review >> ofdraft-ietf-syslog-tc-mib-04.txt >> >> >> Hi, >> >>> Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>>> 1. I do not believe that it is necessary to carry all the >> duplicated >>>> text in the MIB module as commented text, as it does not provide >> any >>>> significant implementation information. >>> I will agree with this. >>> Are there any other opinions / suggestions on this issue ? > >> Syslog-WG >> >> I believe the normative nature of the labels and values, and the >> non-normative nature of the mappings to applications, is important >> information for implementation and interpretation. If the MIB module >> is separated from the document, we want to make sure this information >> stays with the MIB module. >> >> Therefeore, I would keep the text about the normative nature of the >> labels and values in the MIB module and remove the duplicate text from >> the surrounding document, if you are going to remove one of the >> duplicates. >> >> David Harrington >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors >> _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
