[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MODULE-IDENTITY assignemnts

To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: MODULE-IDENTITY assignemnts
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 23:56:20 +0200
Cc: "'C. M. Heard'" <heard@pobox.com>, "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15506AD778C@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
Mail-followup-to: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "'C. M. Heard'" <heard@pobox.com>, "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15506AD778C@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
Reply-to: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.8i

On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 01:39:54PM +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> 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

My understanding is that IANA so far has just listed the RFC that
caused the first allocation. I don't think this is broken (since you
can follow the chain of RFC updates change easily in the RFC index 
file) and hence I suggest "no change" here (option #1 above).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

References:
- RE: MODULE-IDENTITY assignemnts
  - From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Prev by Date: FW: Initial review of draft-nelson-rfc2618bis-00.txt
Next by Date: Please review documents on IESG Agenda for May 12, 2005 Telechat
Previous by thread: Re: MODULE-IDENTITY assignemnts
Next by thread: Volunteer for RADIUS MIB documents - MIB Doctor Review
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread