PWG> MIB comment

PWG> MIB comment

PWG> MIB comment

Randy Turner rturner at sharplabs.com
Fri Dec 6 00:43:38 EST 1996


At 05:45 PM 12/5/96 MST, Harry Lewis <harryl at vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>Randy wrote:
>
>....snip...snip...
>
>>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?


Yes, according to Steve Waldbusser, it won't compile if I leave them where
they are.
>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
>


Randy



More information about the Pwg mailing list