RE: REMINDER: Call for review of RFC 2618bis-2621bis

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

In fact, since it uses the same MIB and MODULE-IDENTITY
name and OID, it thereby MUST OBSOLETE RFC2618.

So I agree that it should state: obsoletes RFC2618

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 08:54
> To: Bernard Aboba; Nelson, David
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: REMINDER: Call for review of RFC 2618bis-2621bis
> 
> 
> 
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-rfc2618
> bis-00.txt
> >  
> >
> I read this. The content seems OK (but I'm not much of an MIB
> expert).
> 
> But I do have a question. The document "updates RFC 2618",
> but as far as I can determine, it contains all the objects from
> 2618 and then adds some. If so, why isn't the designation
> "Obsoletes RFC 2618"?
> 
> --Jari
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>