Do we agree on an RFC-Erratum for RFC2578

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

[Added Mark, because he brought up the issue I believe, 
 Added Keith because he is one of the co-editors of RFC2578]

We've had some discussion about a piece of text in RFC2578 and possible
clarifying text in the mib review guidelines. We're wondering if
it is maybe better to clarify the RFC itself via an RFC-erratum.

So ALL MREVIEW list members, pls speak up and post your opinion:

RFC2578 sect 7.7. states on page 29:

  (2)  a conceptual row must contain at least one columnar object which is
       not an auxiliary object.  In the event that all of a conceptual
       row's columnar objects are also specified in its INDEX clause, then
       one of them must be accessible, i.e., have a MAX-ACCESS clause of
       "read-only". (Note that this situation does not arise for a
       conceptual row allowing create access, since such a row will have a
       status column which will not be an auxiliary object.)

The proposed erratum is to change the "i.e." into an "e.g." because we
intended to say (for example) in the above text. So it would read:

  (2)  a conceptual row must contain at least one columnar object which is
       not an auxiliary object.  In the event that all of a conceptual
       row's columnar objects are also specified in its INDEX clause, then
       one of them must be accessible, e.g., have a MAX-ACCESS clause of
       "read-only". (Note that this situation does not arise for a
       conceptual row allowing create access, since such a row will have a
       status column which will not be an auxiliary object.)

So this makes it clearer that a table that has only auxiliary objects of 
which one of them has a MAX-ACCESS of accessible-for-notify or read-only. 

Thanks
Bert