MODULE-IDENTITY assignemnts

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

MIB Doctors,

Mmmm... I have never seen this type of question before.
If I look at other examples (take IF-MIB for example) 
then I believe we have just kept the reference to the 
RFC that initially caused the allocation to happen.

So I am inclined to repond that they should keep the
old reference.

Does anyone see an issue/concern with that?

Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Michelle Cotton via RT
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 06:09
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: csikes@paradyne.com; rray@pesa.com; sneedmike@hotmail.com;
Rajesh.Abbi@alcatel.com
Subject: [rt.icann.org #2904] Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects
for High Bit-Rate DSL - 2nd generation (HDSL2) and Single-Pair
High-Speed Digital Subscriber Line (SHDSL) Lines' to Proposed Standard 


IESG:

The IANA has reviewed the following Internet-Draft which is in Last
Call:  <draft-ietf-adslmib-gshdslbis-10.txt>, and has the following 
with regards to the publication of this document:

We understand this document to not request any NEW IANA Action.  Should 
the reference for transmission number 48 for hdsl2ShdslMIB be changed 
to become this document or should the reference remain [RFC3276]?

Thank you.

Michelle Cotton
(on behalf of IANA)