RE: IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> IssuewithEpackagerequirements
"Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipcdn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Randy, 'L' and 'E' packages are already defined, so it should be ok. Good suggestion on the semantics related to 'only'. Will take that into consideration. Thanks! Sumanth > 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 _______________________________________________ IPCDN mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn