Re: Genart review of RFC 3756 MIBs
"Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Fri, 30 June 2006 18:26 UTC
Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:27:09 +0000
Message-ID: <BAY106-F4DA3E461FCFF6E3483C7A937D0@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Bcc:
Subject: Re: Genart review of RFC 3756 MIBs
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:26:39 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> CC: stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be, radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Re: Genart review of draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-server-mib-05 / draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-client-mib-05 Ron, it seems clear that the -06 versions are OK then, no need for a real re-review. Brian Ron Bonica wrote: >Ok. In that case, you are fine. The MIB Rx is the MIB Doctor Review >group. Your AD will introduce you to them somewhere in the process. > > Ron > > >stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be wrote: > >>Hi Ron, >> >>Thanks for the review, see below for some answers >> >>Ron Bonica wrote: >> >> >>>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for: >>>draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-server-mib-05 >>> -and- >>>draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-client-mib-05 >>> >>> >>>For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>>http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. >>>Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >>>you may receive. >>> >>>This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track document, >>>except for the following nit: >>> >> >>In fact, the 2 documents are informational. >> >> >>>- The client MIB contains a note to the RFC editor about the reference >>>[DYNSERV]. However, there is no such reference. >>> >> >>I checked it and the client MIB is Ok, in the server MIB it seems that >>the RFC ed note is incorrect and [DYNSERV] should be replaced by >>[DYNCLNT]. The references in both of the drafts are correct, with the >>exception of the RFC ed note in the server MIB. >> >> >> >>>And two substantial questions: >>> >>>- Can I assume that it has passed MIB Rx Review? (It compiles clean). >>> >> >>Not sure what MIB Rx review is. I compliled the MIB with Smilent. >> >> >>>- Should this MIB *ever* be used in conjuntion with SNMPv1? I know that >>>you *recommend* against it. But it seems that divulging the information >>>in this mib to a hostile party might be pretty bad. >>> >> >>http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html contains preformatted text for >>the security section and that text was put in the draft. See the text on >>that webpage in the section "-- else if there are no read-write objects >>in your MIB module". The text in the draft is more or less a copy/paste >>from that webpage. Also the other Radius MIBs like >>draft-ietf-radext-rfc2618bis-03.txt are also following the guidelines on >>the mentioned webpage. >> >>regards, >>Stefaan >> >> >> >>> Ron >>> >>> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Gen-art mailing list >Gen-art@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
- Re: Genart review of RFC 3756 MIBs Bernard Aboba