|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
approved IETF document
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This recommendation imports definitions from the referenced RFCs to complete the object identifier value assignments. Because these object identifier values are required for successful implementation of the MIB definitions it is necessary to include these RFCs as references.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=2578
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
i) For a standards document, whether it is:
o Best Current Practice
(defines procedures and operational issues; considered the recommended way to perform a certain function; not required to describe actual current practice).
o Proposed Standard
(generally stable and well-understood; real implementation desirable but not necessary; no known technical flaws; considered immature; may be changed if problems are found or better solutions are identified; deploying implementation of such standards into a disruption-sensitive environment is not recommended).
o Draft Standard
(at least two independent, interoperable implementations and sufficient successful operational experience exist; if IPR issues are known, then independent implementations must be based on at least two separate exercises of the licensing process; considered mature and final form of specification).
o Internet Standard
(significant implementation and successful operational experience has been obtained).
ii) For a non-standards document, whether it is:
o Informational; or
o Experimental.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
IETF RFC 2578 Obsoletes: 1902
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection -/
Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1),/
International Organization for Standardization. International/
Standard 8824, (December, 1987)./
/
[2] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M./
and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58,/
RFC 2580, April 1999./
/
[3] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M./
and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58,/
RFC 2579, April 1999./
/
[4] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection -/
Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for Abstract Syntax Notation/
One (ASN.1), International Organization for Standardization./
International Standard 8825, (December, 1987)./
/
[5] The SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and/
S. Waldbusser, "Management Information Base for Version 2 of the/
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1907, January/
1996./
/
[6] The SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and/
S. Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple/
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
None
|
|
