RE: Conclusion of IETF Last call on RFC 3576 MIBs, RFC 2618bis-2621bis

"Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 14 June 2006 18:15 UTC

Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:15:27 +0000
Message-ID: <BAY106-F24FA519DFF4DF78500C5A5938D0@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: dnelson@enterasys.com, radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Bcc:
Subject: RE: Conclusion of IETF Last call on RFC 3576 MIBs, RFC 2618bis-2621bis
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:15:13 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"

Can we go ahead and issue  new documents with these issues fixed?  We could 
then ask the IESG to approve the documents.


>From: "Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>
>To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
>Subject: RE: Conclusion of IETF Last call on RFC 3576 MIBs, RFC 
>2618bis-2621bis
>Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:47:53 -0400
>
>Bernard Aboba writes...
>
> > In order to enable IESG evaluation, we are requesting that
> > the authors summarize the IETF last call comments and their
> > responses to them on the RADEXT WG list.
>
>With regard to RFC 2618bis - 2621bis, there is one outstanding comment
>from IETF Last Call, on RFC 2620bis and RFC 2621bis.
>
> >> 3) the accounting client MIB the first line of the MIB changed from
> >>
> >>    RADIUS-ACC-CLIENT-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
> >>
> >> to
> >>
> >>    RADIUS-ACCT-CLIENT-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
> >>
> >> (the T was added). Is this ok?
>
> > Ooops.  No, it is not OK.  This is a typo that will need to be
> > corrected before the document is published as an RFC.  Good catch.
> > Everyone else, including me, has missed this so far.  :-)
>
>Note that this change applies to both the RADIUS Accounting Client and
>Server MIBs.
>
>
>With regard to the RFC 3676 (Dynamic RADIUS) MIBs, Stefaan DeCnodder has
>recently written, in response to a GetArt Review comment...
>
> >> - 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.
>
>With regard to the RFC 3676 (Dynamic RADIUS) MIBs, Stefaan DeCnodder has
>recently written, in response to RADEXT Issue No. 193...
>
><quote>
>
>* draft-ietf-dynauth-client-mib-06.txt
>
>1) issue 193: change SYNTAX of radiusDynAuthServerClientPortNumber from
>"InetPortNumber" to "InetPortNumber (1..65535)"
>
>     radiusDynAuthServerClientPortNumber OBJECT-TYPE
>            SYNTAX     InetPortNumber (1..65535)
>            MAX-ACCESS read-only
>            STATUS     current
>            DESCRIPTION
>                  "The UDP destination port that the RADIUS Dynamic
>                   Authorization Client is using to send requests to this
>                   server. The value zero is invalid."
>            ::= { radiusDynAuthServerEntry 4 }
>
>2) remove radiusDynAuthClientCounterDiscontinuity as a scaler and put it
>as last attribute in the table. Description has been updated slightly as
>well as a small update in the conformance statement to reflect the move
>of this attribute into the table. Also a small update of the overview
>section that describes high level the scalars and table.
>
>     radiusDynAuthClientCounterDiscontinuity OBJECT-TYPE
>            SYNTAX TimeTicks
>            UNITS  "hundredths of a second"
>            MAX-ACCESS read-only
>            STATUS current
>            DESCRIPTION
>                  "The time (in hundredths of a second) since the
>                   last counter discontinuity. A discontinuity may
>                   be the result of a reinitialization of the DAC
>                   module within the managed entity."
>            ::= { radiusDynAuthServerEntry 32 }
>
>3) update date of draft and also inside the MIB
>
>* draft-ietf-dynauth-server-mib-06.txt
>
>1) remove radiusDynAuthServerCounterDiscontinuity as a scaler and put it
>as last attribute in the table. Description has been updated slightly as
>well as a small update in the conformance statement to reflect the move
>of this attribute into the table. Also a small update of the overview
>section that describes high level the scalars and table.
>
>     radiusDynAuthServerCounterDiscontinuity OBJECT-TYPE
>            SYNTAX TimeTicks
>            UNITS  "hundredths of a second"
>            MAX-ACCESS read-only
>            STATUS current
>            DESCRIPTION
>                  "The time (in hundredths of a second) since the
>                   last counter discontinuity. A discontinuity may
>                   be the result of a reinitialization of the DAS
>                   module within the managed entity."
>            ::= { radiusDynAuthClientEntry 27 }
>
>2) update date of draft and also inside the MIB
>
></quote>
>
>
>--
>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/>



--
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/>