RE: Personal invitation to comment on the RPR MIB - Ballot P802. 17/D 3.2 2nd Recirculation

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

> > I did not say it is MANDATORY or NEEDED. I said it would be "best".
> > I base this on section 4.4 of 
> > draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt
> > I think it makes interdependecy clearer. But I would not block on it.
> 
> I see what you mean, I read your comment differently in
> 'best' was for the inclusion in the MODULE-COMPLIANCE itself.
> 
I think that also would be best.
But possibly the whole IF-MIB needs to be implementd when this RPR
MIB is used. So in that case we could just say that in the 
DESCRIPTION clause.

It never hurts to be explicit and clear!

Bert
> 
> Harrie
>