RE: Updating the MIB Review guidelines

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Tue, 25 May 2004, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Shouldn't we also update 4.6.1.7 and refer to
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-04.txt
> rather than to RFC 3291?

On Tue, 25 May 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) replied:
> Yep, would be good!

Unless 3291bis actually gets published before we get the respin out,
what I'd prefer to do is update the existing RFC Editor note


      ************************************************************
      * NOTES TO RFC Editor (to be removed prior to publication) *
      *                                                          *
                             [ .... ]
      *                                                          *
      * 3.) The I-D <draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-01.txt> (or a     *
      * successor) is expected to eventually replace RFC 3291.   *
      * If that draft (or a successor) is published as an RFC    *
      * prior to or concurrently with this document, then the    *
      * normative reference [RFC3291] should be updated to       *
      * point to the replacement RFC, and the reference tag      *
      * [RFC3291] should be updated to match.                    *
      *                                                          *
      ************************************************************

to point to draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-04.txt.  That way the
guidelines doc will not be held up even if 3291bis is (although I
don't really expect that to happen).

Mike