RE: Revised RADIUS MIBs I-Ds

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

Is it correct to assume that the revised submissions address all open
issues?

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Nelson, David wrote:

> Sorry for the incomplete message.  My mail client "got away from me".
> :-)
>
> I would like to call the attention of the RADEXT WG to four revised
> I-Ds:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2618bis-01.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2619bis-01.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2620bis-01.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2621bis-01.txt
>
> The -01 versions incorporate the feedback from MIB Doctor review.  These
> documents update their respective predecessor RFCs, deprecate the table
> in which the IPv4-only address objects appear and add a new table
> containing version neutral IP address objects.  The deprecated tables
> MAY be used for backwards compatibility.
>
> Please review and comment upon these drafts.  There will be a very short
> discussion of them at IETF-63.  Shortly after IETF-63, if there are no
> major issues, I propose to submit these I-Ds as RADEXT WG documents and
> initiate a WG Last Call.
>
>
> --
> 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/>