RE: review for: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-09.txt [wasRE: PRELIMI NARY Agenda and Package for April 13, 2006 Telechat ]

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: C. M. Heard; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Bill Fenner (E-mail); Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: review for: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-09.txt 
> [wasRE: PRELIMI NARY Agenda and Package for April 13, 2006 Telechat ]
> 
> Inline
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 23:19
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Bill Fenner (E-mail); Mreview (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: review for: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-09.txt [wasRE:
> > PRELIMI NARY Agenda and Package for April 13, 2006 Telechat ]
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > > Yes, but I believe those are all because this is 
> basically an update 
> > > to the old (SMIv1) RFC1850 MIB module.
> > 
> > Actually, RFC 1850 contained an SMIv2 MIB module, but that 
> was itself 
> > an update to RFC 1253 (which did contain an SMIv2 MIB module.
> > 
> 
> OK,OK, 1850 was more SMIv2 like, although I would not really 
> call it an SMIv2 MIB. I guess that was caused by the fact 
> that it was based on (i.e. an update to) RFC 1253. I am 
> somewhat surprised how you can say that RFC1253 contains an 
> SMIv2 MIB module and would like to understand why you think that.
> 

I believe that Mike missed a 'not' and his phrase should be read as

> > an update to RFC 1253 (which did not contain an SMIv2 MIB module.

Dan