Re: guidelines section 3.7 (disposition of IANA MIB modules)

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
> To: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:01 PM
> Subject: Re: guidelines section 3.7 (disposition of IANA MIB modules)
>

> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > [ ... ] but it should certainly be normative.
>
> No, it _cannot_ be normative, because the version maintained by IANA
> is.  There are never two normative version of the same thing.

No.  It *is* normative.  If it were not, we couldn't make normative references
(e.g. IMPORTS) from other standards.  It will superceded if/when the IANA
copy is updated.  That's what the "health warning" and IANA pointer are for.

If we label something as "non-normative", it means that the technical
effect of the specification would be unchanged if that material had never
existed, which is clearly not the case here.

> > (If it's non-normative, what's the point of publishing it?)
>
> My point exactly.

Perhaps I'm not being clear: marking something as "non-
normative" means it is *NOT* part of the specification.
Non-normative material is typically examples, use cases,
and other "stuff" to help readers understand how to
apply a standard.  These MIB modules are much more
than "examples".

Randy