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

[shawn.routhier@windriver.com]

We didn't include the IPv6 objects that are effectively deprecated
in the IP mib (RFC2011) update either.  We did include the previous
IPv4 objects.  

I don't have a strong opinion on this topic but would be unhappy with
anything that caused significant changes to the documents already on
the editor's queue.

regards,
Shawn 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:21 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Mreview (E-mail); Bill Fenner (E-mail); John Flick 
> (E-mail); Margaret Wasserman (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
> 
> 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
> 
>