RE: Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-09.txt

 inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> 
> (a) the text in Sections 3.2 was adapted from the original 1493 but
> now points to RFCs 3418 and 2863.  As a result it is now inaccurate.
> Details were spelled out in previous e-mail responses to Juergen.
> If you wish to leave the prerequisites exactly as they were in 1493
> then you should probably revert to referring to RFC 1213.  If you
> want to leave the references to 3418 and 2863 then please do
> something to fix the inaccuracies, particularly in 3.2.2.
> 
After reviewing the discussion more closely, I agree. 
This text should refer to RFC1213 for backwards compatibility.

There is no MODULE-COMPLIANCE in RFC3418 that appropriately reflects
RFC1213 compliance.
The same appears to be true for RFC2863.

> (b) undo the following changes (or get an AD waiver from the MIB
> review guidelines):
> 
> BRIDGE-MIB.mi2:194 [5] {named-number-changed} warning: named number
> `transparent-only' changed to `transparentOnly' at type used in
> `dot1dBaseType'
> BRIDGE-MIB.mi2:194 [5] {named-number-changed} warning: named number
> `sourceroute-only' changed to `sourcerouteOnly' at type used in in
> `dot1dBaseType'
>  
I agree. The changes should be undone for backwards compatibility.

Unless I hear from others who object to this, I will forward these
recommendations to the ADs.

David Harrington
[email protected]
co-chair, IETF Bridge WG