[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: radius dynauth client/server mibs structure



I think, that I suggested that the doc could get a new revision
after the telechat (so during the week of IETF) and then it could
get approved. We prefer to not let RFC-Editor make these type
of changes. RFC-Editor DOES do MIB SYNTAX check though, but
they do not check if the resuling OID tree is as we expect it
to be.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nagi Reddy Jonnala (njonnala) [mailto:njonnala@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 05:42
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Nelson, David; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Subject: RE: radius dynauth client/server mibs structure
> 
> 
> Agree with Dan. Assume that there would be a trigger to the 
> authors when
> these changes are made to re-check the syntax.
> 
> Thanks
> Nagi
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:24 AM
> To: Nelson, David; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Subject: RE: radius dynauth client/server mibs structure
> 
> I have no objection, but I am slightly uneasy with changes in the MIB
> module being made by the RFC Editor. Maybe they are checking 
> the syntax
> as well, but to be on the safe side I recommend that after 
> the change is
> performed the authors extract the MIB text from the draft 
> submitted for
> verification by the RFC Editor and re-check the syntax using the
> recommended tools. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> > [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, David
> > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:45 PM
> > To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> > Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Subject: RE: radius dynauth client/server mibs structure
> > 
> > Bert Wijnen writes...
> > 
> > (Suggesting a mechanism for addressing the comments from Juergen 
> > Schoenwalder and himself.)
> > 
> > > Let me see, the RFC-Editor note (for each MIB) would read 
> something
> > aka
> > > 
> > > OLD:
> > >    radiusDynAuthServerMIBObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
> > >                                          {
> > radiusDynAuthServerMIB 1 }
> > > 
> > >    radiusDynAuthServer           OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
> > >                                   {
> > radiusDynAuthServerMIBObjects 1 }
> > > 
> > >    radiusDynAuthServerDisconInvalidClientAddresses OBJECT-TYPE
> > >          SYNTAX Counter32
> > >          MAX-ACCESS read-only
> > >          STATUS current
> > >          DESCRIPTION
> > >                "The number of Disconnect-Request packets
> > received from
> > >                 unknown addresses."
> > >          ::= { radiusDynAuthServer 1 }
> > > 
> > >    radiusDynAuthServerCoAInvalidClientAddresses OBJECT-TYPE
> > >          SYNTAX Counter32
> > >          MAX-ACCESS read-only
> > >          STATUS current
> > >          DESCRIPTION
> > >                "The number of CoA-Request packets received from
> > unknown
> > >                 addresses."
> > >          ::= { radiusDynAuthServer 2 }
> > > 
> > >    radiusDynAuthServerIdentifier OBJECT-TYPE
> > >          SYNTAX SnmpAdminString
> > >          MAX-ACCESS read-only
> > >          STATUS current
> > >          DESCRIPTION
> > >                 "The NAS-Identifier of the RADIUS Dynamic
> > Authorization
> > >                  Server. This is not necessarily the same 
> as sysName
> > in
> > >                  MIB II."
> > >          REFERENCE
> > >                 "RFC 2865, Section 5.32, NAS-Identifier."
> > >          ::= { radiusDynAuthServer 3 }
> > > 
> > >    radiusDynAuthClientTable OBJECT-TYPE
> > >          SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF RadiusDynAuthClientEntry
> > >          MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
> > >          STATUS     current
> > >          DESCRIPTION
> > >                "The (conceptual) table listing the RADIUS Dynamic
> > >                 Authorization Clients with which the 
> server shares a
> > >                 secret."
> > >          ::= { radiusDynAuthServer 4 }
> > > 
> > > NEW:
> > >    radiusDynAuthServerMIBObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
> > >                                          {
> > radiusDynAuthServerMIB 1 }
> > > 
> > > >  radiusDynAuthServerScalars    OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
> > >                                   {
> > radiusDynAuthServerMIBObjects 1 }
> > > 
> > >    radiusDynAuthServerDisconInvalidClientAddresses OBJECT-TYPE
> > >          SYNTAX Counter32
> > >          MAX-ACCESS read-only
> > >          STATUS current
> > >          DESCRIPTION
> > >                "The number of Disconnect-Request packets
> > received from
> > >                 unknown addresses."
> > > >        ::= { radiusDynAuthServerScalars 1 }
> > > 
> > >    radiusDynAuthServerCoAInvalidClientAddresses OBJECT-TYPE
> > >          SYNTAX Counter32
> > >          MAX-ACCESS read-only
> > >          STATUS current
> > >          DESCRIPTION
> > >                "The number of CoA-Request packets received from
> > unknown
> > >                 addresses."
> > > >        ::= { radiusDynAuthServerScalars 2 }
> > > 
> > >    radiusDynAuthServerIdentifier OBJECT-TYPE
> > >          SYNTAX SnmpAdminString
> > >          MAX-ACCESS read-only
> > >          STATUS current
> > >          DESCRIPTION
> > >                 "The NAS-Identifier of the RADIUS Dynamic
> > Authorization
> > >                  Server. This is not necessarily the same 
> as sysName
> > in
> > >                  MIB II."
> > >          REFERENCE
> > >                 "RFC 2865, Section 5.32, NAS-Identifier."
> > > >        ::= { radiusDynAuthServerScalars 3 }
> > > 
> > >    radiusDynAuthClientTable OBJECT-TYPE
> > >          SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF RadiusDynAuthClientEntry
> > >          MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
> > >          STATUS     current
> > >          DESCRIPTION
> > >                "The (conceptual) table listing the RADIUS Dynamic
> > >                 Authorization Clients with which the 
> server shares a
> > >                 secret."
> > > >        ::= { radiusDynAuthServerMIBObjects 2 }
> > 
> > It has been noted that this is a simple change to make 
> before issuing 
> > the RFC, and before there are implementations in the field.
> > 
> > Is there any objection among the members of the WG to resolving the 
> > O&M Area Directorate comments on these documents, as shown?
> > 
> > Upon hearing no objections, the changes will be applied.  
> > Please respond prior to March 16 (the IESG Telechat at which these 
> > documents are likely to be discussed).
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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/>
> 

--
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/>