PWG Mail Archive: Re: PWG> MIB comment

Re: PWG> MIB comment

Randy Turner (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Thu, 05 Dec 1996 21:43:38 -0800

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Harry Lewis: "PWG> Postscript-->PDF conversion"
Previous message: Harry Lewis: "Re: PWG> MIB comment"
Maybe in reply to: Harry Lewis: "PWG> MIB comment"

At 05:45 PM 12/5/96 MST, Harry Lewis <harryl@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

Next message: Harry Lewis: "PWG> Postscript-->PDF conversion"
Previous message: Harry Lewis: "Re: PWG> MIB comment"
Maybe in reply to: Harry Lewis: "PWG> MIB comment"