RE: MODULE-IDENTITY assignemnts

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

I can do either of the 3 suggestions made by Mike.
But I would be reluctant to go tell RFC-Ed to go
back and update all current references. If we want that,
thne somone from our MIB doctor team should volunteer to
collect the info and hand it to IANA.

Other opinions or preferences for one of the 3 suggestions
by Mike? A "I don't care" is also useful to hear.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 21:20
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: MODULE-IDENTITY assignemnts
> 
> 
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I suspect that the question has arisen because we've
> started putting stuff in the IANA Considerations section
> of MIB documents that was never there before.  I'm thinking
> specifically about the stuff in Section 3.5.3 of the MIB
> review guidelines on inherited IANA Considerations sections
> that just deal with an pre-existing OID assignment.
> 
> > So I am inclined to repond that they should keep the
> > old reference.
> > 
> > Does anyone see an issue/concern with that?
> 
> I would have no problem with any of the following policies,
> as long as there is consistent application:
> 
> - list only the original document for which the registry
>   entry was created
> 
> - list only the latest version of the relevat spec
> 
> - list the original document and all of its updates
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----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)
>