RE: [Gen-art] RE: REVIEW: draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib-02.txt

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

Michael,

I am leaving to the authors of the document to answer your question
first. 

It also would be useful for the Gen-Art review to be included in the
tracker as a DISCUSS or COMMENT. Brian, do you intent to do it? 

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A. Patton [mailto:MAP@MAP-NE.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:35 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; gramkumar@stanfordalumni.org; 
> mreview@ops.ietf.org; kzm@cisco.com; scott.kipp@mcdata.com
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] RE: REVIEW: draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib-02.txt
> 
> If I understand your referenced message, it is only 
> responding to one of my points, the minor comment about the 
> wording of and classification of the references in Section 2. 
>  And you forwarded on to the MIB doctors because the 
> referenced text is standard boilerplate.
> 
> Well, if it's standard boilerplate, then that's a sufficient 
> explanation for it being worded that way and I withdraw my 
> suggestion for clearer text.  After all, when I look at a MIB 
> to use it (as opposed to when I'm reviewing it for (human) 
> readability), I never look at that section, so how it's 
> worded probably has very little effect on interoperability.
> 
> However, you haven't responded to the major concern about 
> "Updates 4044" which I see from other messages is also of 
> concern to Brian.
> 
> 	-MAP
>