Re: Issue with MIB compilation requirement in "AD Review of I-Ds" (http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html)

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> C M Heard writes:

Mike> Here is what I came up with over the weekend for a revised
Mike> version of Section 4.2 of the MIB authors and reviewer's
Mike> guidelines document.  

The text is still fine with me.

With my implementor hat on: I have a related question even though it
might be out of scope in this context: What happens to SPPI? Is it
safe to assume that the same change holds true for similar SPPI rules?
And if yes, do we bother to say so even though these are SMI/MIB
guidelines? Or do I just flip a coin to decide whether I keep the
checks for SPPI (in order to remove them later when people are annoyed
enough of the warnings and document that it be removed...)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>