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

Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE

To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:13:53 -0800
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10301071223280.26990-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030107121047.02e5bec0@127.0.0.1>

HI,

Note that "unconditionally optional group" is a not valid term.

Regards,
/david t. perkins

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

References:
- Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
  - From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
- Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
  - From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>

Prev by Date: Is unconstrained INTEGER illegal in SMIv2?
Next by Date: Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
Previous by thread: Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
Next by thread: Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread