Re: Do we agree on an RFC-Erratum for RFC2578

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 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:
> 
>    [ ... ]
> 
> 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.)

If the SMIv2 document editors agree that this accurately reflects
what was actually intended, then indeed it should be posted as an
RFC-erratum.

Mike