Re: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-08.txt]

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

Hi -

> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
> To: "Mark Ellison" <ellison@ieee.org>; "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>; <heard@pobox.com>
> Cc: <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 3:08 AM
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-08.txt]
>

> I would welcome a quick clarification on this issue, as the raqmon documents are due
> to be sipped to the IESG. My interpretation is that having objects with a MAX-ACCESS
> of 'accessible-for-notify' in the conceptual row is enough to meet the intent of SMIv2.

I also agree that this seems to be the spirit, if not the letter, of the CLR.

> However, if the intent is indeed for at least one object to be 'read-only' and
> not something else, please jump in (with a more detailed justification of course).
...

I have so frequently seen "i.e." and "e.g." confused in internet drafts that
I think it's appropriate to take this particular usage of "i.e." cum grano salis.
Furthermore, I'd suggest that authors avoid the latin abbreviations by either
spelling out the complete phrase or using its non-latin equivalent.

Randy