Re: remops compliance change explanation

Hi -

> From: "Juergen Quittek" <[email protected]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]>; "Disman" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 2:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Disman] remops compliance change explanation
...
> > "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.
> ?
...

A clear explanation, even if it does have "CLR" written all over it.
This text works for me, even if I don't personally like the structure
of the compliance stuff.  (I'd have just created new groups for the
minimal compliance stuff.)

s/compliancy/compliance/   I spent too much time in ISO land, where
we would have called this "conformance" rather than "compliance".

Randy