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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > 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...)
> 
> I am completely unqualified to write guidelines on the SPPI because
> I know next to nothing about it and certainly have never used it to
> write a PIB.  If we need a PIB guidelines document, someone else will
> have to be resposible for it.
> 
My thinking is that most of the SPPI rules are inherited from SMI,
so we can use the same relaxing/policy w.r.t. CLRs.
Only in places where the SPPI explicitly states that it deviates from SMI,
only at those places do we need to worry and take extra checks.

Mike, I agree with you that this doc should be about SMI.
If SPPI wants to fomrally adopt it, someone there can write a doc
or it can be done if they ever revise their SPPI doc.
In nay event, if we were to say something explicit about SPPI,
then we should involve the SPPI folk in the discussion.

Hope thishelps,
Bert
> //cmh
> 
>