Re: Protocol Action: SNMP Version 2 and SNMP Security to Proposed Standard

karl@mel-brooks.empirical.com Fri, 02 April 1993 15:49 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03037; 2 Apr 93 10:49 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03033; 2 Apr 93 10:49 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10282; 2 Apr 93 10:49 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03021; 2 Apr 93 10:49 EST
Received: from HQ.TGV.COM by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03017; 2 Apr 93 10:49 EST
Received: from mel-brooks.empirical.com ([161.44.128.66]) by TGV.COM via INTERNET ; Fri, 2 Apr 93 07:49:49 PST
Received: from karl.mel-brooks by mel-brooks.empirical.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07045; Fri, 2 Apr 93 07:49:57 PST
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 93 07:49:57 PST
Message-Id: <9304021549.AA07045@mel-brooks.empirical.com>
To: iesg-secretary@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
cc: IETF-Announce: %IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US@tgv.com;, postel@isi.edu, iab@isi.edu, snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com, snmp-sec-dev@tis.com, IESG@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
In-Reply-To: IESG Secretary's message of Fri, 02 Apr 93 09:08:43 -0500 <9304020908.aa02084@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Subject: Re: Protocol Action: SNMP Version 2 and SNMP Security to Proposed Standard
Reply-To: karl@empirical.com
X-Orig-Sender: karl@mel-brooks.empirical.com
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: karl@mel-brooks.empirical.com
Repository: empirical.com
Originating-Client: mel-brooks

 >     The IESG has approved the SNMP Version 2 and SNMP Security Protocols
 >     as a Proposed Standard.
 >
 >   Protocol Quality
 >
*>    (Who has reviewed the spec for the IESG? Are there implementations?)
 >
+>      The documents meet all the requirements for entry into the standards
 >      track as Proposed Standards as specified in RFC 1310, i.e.,

That line with the "*" scares me.  Did these documents get the
technical review that is implied by the lines with the "+"?

			--karl--