[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Do we agree on an RFC-Erratum for RFC2578
HI,
I suggest that if you change this, then don't just change the
"i.e." to "e.g." (nor just put in "for example").
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> [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
>
Regards,
/david t. perkins