RE: snmpconf "bcp" Version 11 published

[ dropped Randy from cc: list, I think he is on snmpconf list,
  otherwise he will see the result]

Wayne, 
I did not see the split posted anywhere.... pls resend.

No need to hurry either, internet-drafts is closed till Monday.
You can send them an email to not publish whatever you did send
already over the holiday period.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne F. Tackabury [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: vrijdag 3 januari 2003 22:22
> To: [email protected]; Randy Bush
> Subject: RE: snmpconf "bcp" Version 11 published
> 
> 
> At 02:41 PM 1/3/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 
> >Wayne, pls post your list of the suggested split, so we can check.
> 
> I did that.  Since I haven't heard any specific feedback, I'm 
> going with 
> what I last posted, *with one exception*.  In carefully 
> looking, MIBs in 
> RFC 2011/3418 have been used in a strictly informative/demonstrative 
> fashion, hence 3418 goes to the informative set.  Did I say 
> 3418?  Oh yeah...
> 
> 
> >Wayne, it would also be much better to change the references to the
> >SNMP documents to the new RFC341x range.
> 
> Done.
> 
> 
> 
> >We have also more or less agreed on a new new MIB boilerplate
> >that you may want to check....
> 
> a) I cannot get to this site either
> b) Since this has already undergone last calls, conversion to 
> Informative, 
> and submission to IESG, and what you reference is "new new" 
> and "more or 
> less" agreed on,
> c) this is *Informative*, and not presenting any standards track MIB,
> d) this is consistent with the prior boilerplate
> e) I'd like to submit a new version today :).
> 
> Therefore I'd like to punt on this particular one.
> 
> I'll resubmit with these changes otherwise.  Oh, and I have 
> access to the 
> tiac.net website again, I'll let you know when I have the new 
> -11 up there.
> 
> If you have an issue with this, let me know, well, *the next 
> 30 minutes* 
> would be nice. :)
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne
> 
> >   http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html
> >
> >although right at this moment I seem unable to access myself.
> >
> >Bert
> >
> > >
> > > /jon
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jon Saperia [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > Sent: donderdag 2 januari 2003 15:16
> > > > > To: [email protected]; Randy Bush; Wayne F. Tackabury
> > > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > > Subject: Re: snmpconf "bcp" Version 11 published
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 30 December 2002 10:27 pm, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > > > > > -- The "references" section is now called "Informative
> > > > > > > References".  This is consistent with the notion that
> > > this is to
> > > > > > > be an Informational RFC, and has no particular
> > > pronouncements on
> > > > > > > its own.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > uh, to be precise, any of the references which MUST 
> be read to
> > > > > > understand this document are normative, not informational.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > randy
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have a specific suggestion for changing the title of
> > > > > the section?
> > > > > If not, we can leave it alone or change back to just
> > > > > 'references' as in
> > > > > previous draft which I assume could be done by the RFC
> > > editor if you
> > > > > wanted.
> > > > >
> > > > > /jon
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jon Saperia
> > > > >
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > Phone: 978-461-0249
> > > > > Fax:   617-249-0874
> > > > > http://www.jdscons.com/
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jon Saperia
> > >
> > > [email protected]
> > > Phone: 978-461-0249
> > > Fax:   617-249-0874
> > > http://www.jdscons.com/
> > >
>