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

RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620

To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, <stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be>, "Carl Kalbfleisch" <carlk@netrake.com>
Subject: RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620
From: "Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 13:32:45 -0400
Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>, "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "David Kessens" <david.kessens@nokia.com>

Dab Romascanu writes...

> My proposal is to go ahead with the IESG LC on the existing documents
> (all six of them) and have the comments submitted as LC comments.

This is fine with me.  I wanted to clarify, however, that my intent was
to issue version -03 of the four "bis" MIB documents, to bring them into
"sync" with the dynauth MIBs at -05, based on the AD comments already
received.  I have yet to complete that revision.



--
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/>

Prev by Date: RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620
Next by Date: RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620
Previous by thread: RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620
Next by thread: RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread