RE: MTA MIB draft 03 and Standalone MTA devices

Bert,

Understood, we'll correct that.
Thanks for your comments. 

Jean-François 

Bert wrote:
> W.r.t.
> > pktcMtaBasicRFCyyyySmtaCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
> >   
> I think this is a bad name. If this module gets 
> updated/clarified and advances to DS later, then it becomes 
> another RFC number. Better to use a name without RFC number. 
> What is wrong with:
> 
>   pktcMtaBasicSmtaCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE



> 
> Same fo course for the current 
>   pktcMtaBasicRFCyyyyCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE 
> in revision 02.
> 
> Bert
> 
>