[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
Subject: Re: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:53:07 -0700
Cc: bwijnen@lucent.com, mreview@ops.ietf.org, johnf@rose.hp.com, margaret@thingmagic.com
References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503C79DF3@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> <20041026102432.GA2219@james>
Versions: dmail (solaris) 2.6d/makemail 2.10

Our original thinking (I don't want to think about how long ago that
actually was) was that including the objects as deprecated would just
bulk up the document with no obvious benefit.  I don't really know how
NMSes work, since I always roll my own, but my impression is that the
deprecated/obsoleted stuff is more for people inspecting MIBs deciding
how to monitor something than for machines.

  Bill

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
  - From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>

References:
- Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
  - From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Re: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
  - From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>

Prev by Date: RE: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
Next by Date: RE: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
Previous by thread: Re: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
Next by thread: Re: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread