[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE

To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 12:13:31 -0800
In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155989C8C@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>

HI,

On the below, the object would be in an included group. And while
"legal", it is incompatible with standard track documents.
In standards tract documents there MUST NOT be any "completely
optional" portions. 

At 09:03 PM 1/7/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>In document draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsec-conf-mib-05.txt
>
>I see in the MODULE-COMPLIACNE things like:
>
>          OBJECT      ihfLastChanged
>          MIN-ACCESS  not-accessible
>          DESCRIPTION
>               "This object not required for compliance."
>
>I don't think I have seen this ever before
>
>Do we believe that that is the proper way do this?
>
>Thanks,
>Bert 
Regards,
/david t. perkins

Follow-Ups:
- Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
  - From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
- Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
  - From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>

References:
- MODULE COMPLIANCE
  - From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Prev by Date: MODULE COMPLIANCE
Next by Date: Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
Previous by thread: MODULE COMPLIANCE
Next by thread: Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread