FW: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC4668 (867)
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Tue, 11 May 2010 10:33 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44AAD3A6405 for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 03:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.244
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.675, BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y4OLop140CZF for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 03:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1C83A6887 for <radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2010 03:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>) id 1OBmic-0002HF-O4 for radiusext-data0@psg.com; Tue, 11 May 2010 10:29:42 +0000
Received: from [198.152.71.100] (helo=de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dromasca@avaya.com>) id 1OBmiZ-0002Fs-Fh for radiusext@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2010 10:29:39 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,206,1272859200"; d="scan'208";a="188102691"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2010 06:29:36 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,206,1272859200"; d="scan'208";a="461499586"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2010 06:29:05 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: FW: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC4668 (867)
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 12:28:55 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04021BE9F2@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC4668 (867)
Thread-Index: AcrwR3iPW2qsJ4m/QcaukCS8jUHLWgArUeEg
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Sender: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <radiusext.ops.ietf.org>
-----Original Message----- From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:48 PM To: ah@tr-sys.de; dnelson@enterasys.com Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); iesg@iesg.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC4668 (867) The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC4668, "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4668&eid=867 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Editorial Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@tr-sys.de> Date Reported: 2006-11-06 Held by: Dan Romascanu (IESG) Original Text ------------- misleading RFC title, including abuse of defined terms (for RFCs 4668 - 4671) IMHO, the RFC titles, "RADIUS ... MIB for IPv6" are misleading. In fact, the new RFCs extend the RADIUS MIB modules to cover IPv6, but they are not IPv6 specific! Perhaps, better wording would have been "... for IPv4 and IPv6". Furthermore, a very 'popular' clash of terms shines up here. As specified in RFC 3410 and Part 1 of STD 62, RFC 3411, and re-stated in the boilerplate Section 3, "The Internet-Standard Management Framework", of all four RFCs, there's just one single Management Information Base (MIB) comprised of various "MIB modules". Thus, throughout the titles and the text bodies of the RFCs, the proper term, "RADIUS ... MIB module" should be used instead of the rather sluggish "RADIUS ... MIB". Corrected Text -------------- Notes ----- from pending -------------------------------------- RFC4668 (draft-ietf-radext-rfc2618bis-04) -------------------------------------- Title : RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6 Publication Date : August 2006 Author(s) : D. Nelson Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : RADIUS EXTensions Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG -- 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/>
- FW: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC4668 (86… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)