Re: Comments on RADIUS MIB documents - MIB Doctor Review

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

"Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com> wrote:
> 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.

  Laziness?  Open source products are notorious for ignoring customer
requests, and implementing only the "fun" things. :)

> 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.

  Products will still have to implement them, though, in order to be
backwards compatible with the people who haven't updated.

> 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.

  I accept the MIB Doctors recommendations.  Having new MIBs is better
than trying to augment the old ones.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>