Re: Nov IETF agenda?

Keith McCloghrie <kzm@hls.com> Tue, 03 November 1992 14:08 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01081; 3 Nov 92 9:08 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id ak01020; 3 Nov 92 9:08 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id af03374; 3 Nov 92 7:56 EST
Received: from SLEEPY.TIS.COM by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26146; 3 Nov 92 3:30 EST
Received: from sleepy.tis.com by sleepy.TIS.COM id aa07542; 3 Nov 92 8:14 GMT
Received: from tis.com by sleepy.TIS.COM id aa07533; 3 Nov 92 3:04 EST
Received: from lanslide.hls.com by TIS.COM (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA03329; Tue, 3 Nov 92 03:04:50 EST
Received: from nms.netman (nms.hls.com) by lanslide.hls.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA00370; Tue, 3 Nov 92 00:05:24 PST
Received: by nms.netman (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10529; Mon, 2 Nov 92 23:59:06 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@hls.com>
Message-Id: <9211030759.AA10529@nms.netman>
Subject: Re: Nov IETF agenda?
To: mlk%bir.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 92 23:59:06 PDT
Cc: snmp-sec-dev@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <0D15DDF1.hjeg6d@bir.bir.com>; from "Michael L. Kornegay" at Nov 1, 92 4:44 pm
Organization: Hughes LAN Systems
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]

 
> Does this working group have an agenda for the November IETF?
 
Jim and I have not yet developed a specific agenda, but the purpose 
of the meeting is to discuss section 3.6 of the SNMPv2 Introduction
document, which is available as an Internet Draft:

    draft-ietf-snmpv2-intro-01.txt

(including the document's two appendices).

Do you have an addition (or alternative) to the agenda you would like
to see ?

> Has this working group received any information from the SNMPv2
> working group indicating their comments and questions about
> the SNMP Administrative Model (Secure SNMP)?
 
The two working groups are working in parallal, and are not specifically
tasked to provide comments and questions to each other.  However,
the issue of "Party Proliferation" has been raised on the snmp2 
mailing-list (and at the Knoxville meeting) and it was specifically
shunted in our direction.
 
Note that if folks have specific problems with the proposed changes,
this coming week is a good time to raise them, in order that we can
discuss them and try to resolve them on the mailing-list prior to the
sessiosn in D.C.  (Note that a couple of issues have already been
raised, and I owe Mike Thatcher a response on one of them.)

Keith.