Re: Alternative procedure for updating MIB modules

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

Hi -

> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 1:52 AM
> Subject: RE: Alternative procedure for updating MIB modules
>

> > I also agree with Mike that publishing the complete updated module
> > should be a MUST.  Piecing MIB modules together from deltas is a
> > bit too bewildering for non-experts.
> >
> You did you see what the proposal was? I must assume you did, but
> then maybe I was not clear. The proposal includes a "merged" mib module
> to be available at the I-D repository during WG process and at rfc-editor
> site when RFC. So the non-expert never has to do the pasting from deltas.
...

With some of the IANA-maintained MIB modules wer'e already there, but
it still bothers me that the "official" module might not be exactly what is
published in the RFC.  For example, if module X is extended by non-overlapping
deltas published in RFCs Y and Z, does a vendor's claim of support for
"RFC Z" imply support for "Y", or will this have to be handled by *very*
carefully written conformance material in the RFCs?

Randy