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

["Michael A. Patton" <MAP@MAP-NE.com>]

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