Randy wrote:
>Concerning the following comments, its my understanding that the
>conformance section of the document is for exceptional conformance
>information that the working group wishes to cite in addition to
>the normal semantics for optional/mandatory groups and/or objects.
>>So I don't believe that the conformance section of the doc needs
>to mention every object in the MIB, just groups and/or objects that
>we want to elaborate on with regards to what we feel a
>"conformant" implementation should do. I will check on this and
>get back to the list.
I like having things spelled out!
>One other note, I will be moving all of the MIN-ACCESS clauses
>now in the actual object definitions into the CONFORMANCE section
>in the next MIB draft.
Do ya have 'ta!? The MIB is hard enough to follow already. Moving all the
TC's to the front made it even harder (have we really reaped any tangible
benifit from this yet?). My 2 cents is I like having the statement right
there in the object. I don't have to look it up twice (or 3 times if
there's a TC associated). Is it a compile concern?
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems