On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:47:27AM -0500, David B Harrington wrote: > Hi, > > > Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > > > 1. I do not believe that it is necessary to carry all the > duplicated > > > text in the MIB module as commented text, as it does not provide > any > > > significant implementation information. > > I will agree with this. > > Are there any other opinions / suggestions on this issue ? > > Syslog-WG > > I believe the normative nature of the labels and values, and the > non-normative nature of the mappings to applications, is important > information for implementation and interpretation. If the MIB module > is separated from the document, we want to make sure this information > stays with the MIB module. > > Therefeore, I would keep the text about the normative nature of the > labels and values in the MIB module and remove the duplicate text from > the surrounding document, if you are going to remove one of the > duplicates.
If the text is important (and I tend to agree it is), then it should be in the DESCRIPTION clause and not comments. This also requires to split the text into the text relevant for facilities and the text relevant for severities. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
