RE: Call for Consensus: RAQMON PDU conformance
"David B Harrington" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rmonmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Ah. That's makes more sense. I agree the wording could be better. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 9:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RMONMIB] Call for Consensus: RAQMON PDU conformance > > Hi - > > > From: "David B Harrington" <[email protected]> > > To: "'Andy Bierman'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 5:17 PM > > Subject: RE: [RMONMIB] Call for Consensus: RAQMON PDU conformance > > > > > Hi, > > > > The first and fourth points seem incongruous in a standards-track > > document. > > If you want the first, then the fourth point should probably be > > eliminated. > ... > > I think (but I could be mistaken) that the points could have been > worded better, and were trying to make this distinction: > (1) effectively defines two mechanisms, inform and trap. > (4) says that trap would be a bad choice operationally, but > does not disparage inform. > > Randy > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RMONMIB mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmonmib >