Re: Entity State MIB Status - DateAndTime Erratum

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:45:33AM +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> I can agree with the erratum submission.

> However, this is not something we should just decide on the EntMIB mailing
> list or WG. It is wider. And it does change the spec. So I'd like to at
> least have IESG approval. The risk is that they may suggest a 4 week IETF
> Last Call to make sure we have IETF consensus. After all it is a change
> (in my view a well justified, accaptable, and apparently used in practice)
> to a full STD document.

So tell me what the procedure is to make it happen and then I will make
up a calculation how much of my time it will cost and then I will decide
whether I engage in this or just let things continue the way they are.

[It the costs of getting this erratum in place is close to publishing
 an RFC on this subject, then I might conclude that other things are 
 more important.]

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany