Re: remops compliance change explanation

Hi Randy,

--On 7/9/2005 10:00 AM -0700 Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Hi -
>
>> From: "Juergen Quittek" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 9:20 AM
>> Subject: [Disman] Re: MIB Doctor review: publishdraft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-06.tx t
> ...
>> > - At the end of section 3.4, you may want to add a sentence explaining
>> >   why the RFC 2925 compliance statement was deprecated.
>>
>> Would you be fine with
>> OLD
>>    In addition, the DISMAN-PING-MIB module and the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB
>>    modules each have a deprecated compliancy statement that was current
>>    in RFC 2925.
>> NEW
>>    In addition, the DISMAN-PING-MIB module and the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB
>>    modules each have a deprecated compliancy statement that was current
>>    in RFC 2925. Semantically, the new full compliancy statements are
>>    identical with the deprecated ones. But the object groups in the
>>    compliancy sections needed to be restructured which is reflected by
>>    the new full compliancy statements.
>> ?
> ...
>
> replace "identical with" -> "identical to"

fixed.

> "needed to be restructured" leaves me wondering "why?"

What about NEW
   In addition, the DISMAN-PING-MIB module and the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB
   modules each have a deprecated compliancy statement that was current
   in RFC 2925.  Semantically, the new full compliancy statements are
   identical to the deprecated ones.  But some of the object groups used
   in the old compliancy statements needed to be split in order to
   support the new minimal compliancy statements.
?

> Randy

Thanks,

    Juergen