RE: Alternative procedure for updating MIB modules

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

> > > 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?
> 
Yep... I am not aware we have been in a "too difficult" situation yet.
So I am willing to go for it.
We'll see how it goes and if wee need additional rules/guidelines.

Bert
> Randy
> 
> 
>