IETF Logo Mail Archive

[BEHAVE] Splitting of draft-ietf-behave-mib

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Sat, 18 October 2014 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2BA1A01E5; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J3dC54NoU2Ku; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22e.google.com (mail-ie0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7079D1A01A8; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id tr6so2624463ieb.33 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YU6wMnfJAx2c1322uCzgqlI2ZAtoe/5qIMYGEzg/x+I=; b=FPr+340QOW5IONvQGoCpZjlSUWq1GRxYVLJhHdqvRI1xTlDYIBEYR7TzCTOhVjhJNx 4hbtDW7CJb3vICtIzzfgK7X+X+gCBtN6Rf3GH5oe4l5BQT+sX48UZ2i+x4hD/lGOWzli ocYujiRJ0OPV1Kwpvj7PZPE4TYbzJaXFw3kVKh3GNw+ETwBv1Bz+SlbiGqJG4XtyugD4 fZf0vlua9ffgvPGcJvznTybYeZveGQT1hg8xwu8SLBeUsiPh1g9eolRhLCDEehVJgcOA H1DTg1ocuSC4xb3ENbUJ6QSXOO2uTOuxt2R1R9HAMx/AAANV1OlUHhl7X5ndCF0eQLzF qAyw==
X-Received: by 10.43.153.131 with SMTP id la3mr17267979icc.38.1413660964852; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (dsl-173-206-91-240.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.91.240]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gb12sm1541736igd.0.2014.10.18.12.36.04 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5442C124.8070904@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:36:04 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-behave-mib.authors@tools.ietf.org, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/YmcVs61dyPP_y61VSwc8w_auIkA
Cc: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [BEHAVE] Splitting of draft-ietf-behave-mib
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:36:07 -0000

draft-ietf-behave-mib 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib) has been 
undergoing AD-sponsored process. I have completed setting up an issue 
tracker based on the issues raised in the Behave Trac tickets #16-19 and 
the 45 comments generated by David Harrington in his detailed review. 
The entry point to that issuee tracker is at

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/trac/wiki/PostIssueTracker

One of the issues was procedural. The current draft deprecates all of 
the objects in the original NAT MIB module (RFC 4008) and then goes on 
to define new objects using the same MIB module name. There seems to be 
agreement that instead, there will be one I-D for the deprecation of 
NAT-MIB and a second I-D to define NAT-MIB-V2. RFC 4008 will be declared 
Historic.

Do I have the procedure right, and are there any other comments?

Tom Taylor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email