Subject: RE: [ipcdn] IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> IssuewithEpackagerequirements

From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:09:19 -0600

Hi Randy,

'L' and 'E' packages are already defined, so it should be ok.

Good suggestion on the semantics related to 'only'.
Will take that into consideration.

Thanks!
Sumanth

> From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:22 PM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> Issue 
> withEpackagerequirements
...
> How about we change the objects mentioned specifically as being 
> required for 'L Package only'?
...

I see two parts to your proposal.

The first part, defining conformance in terms of "L Package," would be
OK with me if the term "L Package" is defined and the WG agrees that
this is the right thing to do.  (As a MIB reviewer, I don't much care
what you call the packages, as long as they are defined.)

The second part, which you might not intend, comes from the word "only".
The phrase "only required for L package" doesn't bother me, since it
doesn't constrain those who do not implement the L package.  The phrase
"required for 'L package only'" bothers me because it can be read as
prohibiting systems which do not implement L package from implementing
these objects.

Randy

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn