Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-adslmib-gshdslbis-06.txt

Randy,

I have made corrections to all the issues but one.  The one I haven't 
done is the third issue regarding references to BCP 78 / RFC 3667 and 
BCP 79 / RFC 3668.  I looked at the last six new RFCs and didn't see 
them in any of the references section. 

I'll upload version -07 tomorrow morning unless I hear otherwise.  My 
assumption is that the references are not needed.  Please let me know if 
my assumption is incorrect.

Thanks again for your comments and time.

- Clay

Randy Presuhn wrote:

>Hi -
>
>  
>
>>From: <[email protected]>
>>To: <[email protected]>
>>Cc: <[email protected]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:28 PM
>>Subject: [Adslmib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-adslmib-gshdslbis-06.txt
>>    
>>
>...
>
>A few comments on the references in the udpated draft -
>
>---
>
>What is RFC 32766?  (page 16)
>
>---
>
>[RFC3410]  Case, J., Mindy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart,
>              "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet
>              Standard Management Framework", RFC 3416, December 2002.
>
>The 3416 should be 3410.
>
>---
>
>BCP 78 and BCP 79 (3667 and 3668) are cited in the IPR stuff,
>but do not appear in the references.  Does anyone know what the
>current policy is for these?
>
>---
>
>References to RFC 3276 appear in the DESCRIPTION portions of
>numerous OBJECT clauses, specifying what the required-to support
>ranges are.  This sounds normative to me.
>
>---
>
>The PerfHist-TC-MIB from RFC 3593 is IMPORTed.  Consequently,
>this needs to be a normative reference.
>
>---
>
>Randy
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Adslmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
>  
>

-- Paradyne Mail --