Re: MIB topic in draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt

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

Hi -

> From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> Cc: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>; "Ipv6mib (E-mail)" <ipv6mib@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:36 PM
> Subject: Re: MIB topic in draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt
...
> I don't understand the objection.  The MIB module in question is (or
> should be) the one in draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt.  That
> module has two current compliance statements,
> ipForwardFullCompliance and ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance, neither of
> which requires support for any IPv4-specific portions of the MIB
> module.  They require only support for version-neutral objects.
> All of the IPv4-specific objects have been deprecated, and so have
> the compliance statements which require them. What's the problem?

Thanks for the helping dispel some of my confusion.  However,
Bert's message referred to draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt.
I'll be satisfied if the update to draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt
explicitly references ipForwardFullCompliance or
ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance.  Otherwise, there's a possibility for
confusion with ipForwardCompliance from 2096, which does require
the IPv4 stuff.

...
> I believe that the same can be said of 2011bis, but I don't know
> that document as well as 2096bis.
...

I just want the documents to specifically identify which compliance
statements are required or recommended.

Randy