[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Genart review of draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-server-mib-05 / draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-client-mib-05
Thanks for the review, see below for some answers
Ron Bonica wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for:
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track document,
except for the following nit:
In fact, the 2 documents are informational.
- The client MIB contains a note to the RFC editor about the reference
[DYNSERV]. However, there is no such reference.
I checked it and the client MIB is Ok, in the server MIB it seems that
the RFC ed note is incorrect and [DYNSERV] should be replaced by
[DYNCLNT]. The references in both of the drafts are correct, with the
exception of the RFC ed note in the server MIB.
And two substantial questions:
- Can I assume that it has passed MIB Rx Review? (It compiles clean).
Not sure what MIB Rx review is. I compliled the MIB with Smilent.
- Should this MIB *ever* be used in conjuntion with SNMPv1? I know that
you *recommend* against it. But it seems that divulging the information
in this mib to a hostile party might be pretty bad.
http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html contains preformatted text for
the security section and that text was put in the draft. See the text on
that webpage in the section "-- else if there are no read-write objects
in your MIB module". The text in the draft is more or less a copy/paste
from that webpage. Also the other Radius MIBs like
draft-ietf-radext-rfc2618bis-03.txt are also following the guidelines on
the mentioned webpage.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.