Re: IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> Issue withEpackagerequirements

Hi -

> From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:22 PM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> Issue withEpackagerequirements
...
> How about we change the objects mentioned specifically as being required
> for 'L Package only'?
...

I see two parts to your proposal.

The first part, defining conformance in terms of "L Package,"
would be OK with me if the term "L Package" is defined and the
WG agrees that this is the right thing to do.  (As a MIB reviewer,
I don't much care what you call the packages, as long as they
are defined.)

The second part, which you might not intend, comes from the word
"only".  The phrase "only required for L package" doesn't bother
me, since it doesn't constrain those who do not implement the
L package.  The phrase "required for 'L package only'" bothers me
because it can be read as prohibiting systems which do not implement
L package from implementing these objects.

Randy