RE: Comments on RADIUS MIB documents - MIB Doctor Review

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

> I am forwarding some RADIUS MIB comments to the WG list, with the
> author's permission.
> 
> I'd like to solicit the WG's opinion on structuring of IPv6 address
> support in the RADIUS MIBs, based on the attached comments.

OK, so no one's interested in discussing this.  :-(

The WG chose, during a couple of IETF meetings, to pursue the slightly
novel approach of augmenting the existing MIB tables with a set of
IPV4/IPv6 address types, and leaving RFC 2618-2621 untouched, and
un-deprecated.  There was not much explicit discussion on *why* this was
the WG's preference.  My personal assumption was that implementers of
IPv4-only products didn't want to see the existing MIBs obsoleted or
deprecated, because someone (a customer or a marketing manager) might
request the successor MIBs to be implemented in the next release.  The
real reason might be something altogether different, of course.

In any event, we have expert review comments on the proposed MIBs that
indicate that this novel augmentation approach is undesirable.  The
suggestion is to update all of the MIBs, deprecating the tables in RFC
2618-2621.

I'm asking that the WG members proactively respond, indicating
acceptance of the MIB Doctors recommendations, or rejection of the
recommendations together with a rationale for doing so.  Once we have
determined consensus on this, then I will be able to issue the next
draft version. I'd like to keep this task on schedule.

Thanks!


--
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/>