Re: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt

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

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> And wonder if it would not be better to pick up the definitions
> from RFC2454 and change the status to eitehr deprecated or
> obsoleted. That way we create a machine readable form of that
> status, whereas otherwise that is kind of vague.
> 
> I have no strong opinion on it. 
> So I would appreciate input from ther MIB Doctor team and/or
> the authors and responsible AD.

I also have no strong opinion on this.  I would only like to point
out that a new version of the MIB module from RFC 2454 with all
objects being made deprecated or obsolete was not put into
draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-06.txt, which was approved on March
22 and is in the publication queue.  It seems to me that we should
do this thing in both places or neither.

//cmh