At 14:09 07/23/97 PDT, Matt King wrote:
>In the "for what it's worth" category (which we all know coming from me
>is not a hell of a lot!), Lloyd had me check the current internet draft
>for MIB syntax before it was submitted. I found several problems --
>many of them related to TCs. The fact is, that while errors are easy to
>induce, they are also easy to find using a decent MIB compiler like
>JK Martin wrote:
>> > >For the sake of sanity, let's define a TC (say, StaticCodeSet, or
>> > >something like that) and use that as the SYNTAX for those OCTET STRING
>> > >values pertaining to this proposal. That is, do NOT simply define such
>> > >objects as OCTET STRING and expect the reader sees the attendant verbage
>> > >on localization. A specific TC for this purpose is much cleaner all
>> > >the way around.
>> > You are right that it would be better to have a TC, but there was concern
>> > that making such edits might include some mistakes and it would take
>> > a more time to do, delaying the forwarding of the document.
>> Hmm... That argument really doesn't hold much water, IMHO. Someone's
>> concerned about adding text because they might mess it up? This situation
>> is certainly no different than any other editing scenario.
>> Please, let's define a TC and use it where appropriate.
>Matt King Opinions are my own and
>Staff Engineer are not necessarily
>Lexmark International, Inc. those of Lexmark