Re: [ipcdn] Re: WG last callondraft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt Part1

Hi -

Technical constributor comments...
Please note that I'm NOT cc-ing the ipcdn list.
Folks that care about this level of detail should be subscribed
to the disman list anyway.

> From: "Juergen Quittek" <[email protected]>
...
> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 2:51 AM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last callondraft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt Part1
...
> > Draft is not indicating in upper header that is obsoleting RFC 2925
>
> I think the RFC editor will take care of this issue.  I did not dare
> yet using an "Obsoletes:" entry in the header while having an "Expires:"
> entry in the line below :-)

What I have done with documents I've edited has been to use
"Will Obsolete" in place of "Obsoletes" in the internet drafts.  In any
case, this is something to double check for in the AUTH48 period.

...
> > - also does "sucessive" means consecutive?
>
> Let's replace "sucessive" by "consecutive".
> Any objection from native English speakers?

I'd prefer "consecutive,"  even though dictionaries may list
"successive" and "consecutive" as potential synonyms.

...
> > pingCtlTrapProbeFailureFilter
> >            "The value of this object is used to determine when
> >            to generate a pingProbeFailed NOTIFICATION.
> >
> >            Setting pingCtlTrapGeneration BIT probeFailure(0)
> >            to '1' implies that a pingProbeFailed
>
> I think we can omit "to '1'".

I think it would be better to keep the "1".  Not everyone assumes
that "setting" and attribute implies that the resulting value will be
non-zero.  Since the document doesn't use the verb "clear", there's
no context to alert the reader to a "set/clear" paradigm rather than
the "set to value" one.

...
> > Normalization of SYNTAX sub-typing as in other objects. -- Just a
> > comment Up to MIB doctor for style normalization in the compliances..
> > pingCtlStorateType can have a SYNTAX clause
> > SYNTAX StorageType { volatile(2)}
>
> I think this is more strict.  I did not intend to exclude. for example,
> 'permanent' entries.
...

It sounds like WRITE-SYNTAX would be more appropriate here.

Randy