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

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

Dave Nelson writes...

Responding to my own reply.

> Bert Wijnen writes...
>
> > Why do we need/want 2 OID branches underneath mib-2?
> > Why can the extensions not be made just within the
> > radiusAuthClientMIB branch itself?
> 
> That question was raised and answered at IETF-63.  The answer was that
> all MIB extension work was to be rooted directly under MIB-II, as that
> is the only registry that IANA controls.  I believe it was Juergen
> Schoenwaelder who provided that guidance.  I believe that Dan
Romascanu
> has given similar advice previously.
> 
> Is that not the correct answer?  I tend to think that the approach you
> suggest makes more sense, but I was previously corrected for doing it
> that way.

Would the fact that we now understand that these drafts will Obsolete
their counterpart RFCs, and contain all the MIB objects from those RFCs,
change the advice around issuing a new MIB branch directly under MIB-II
for the extensions objects?  Would it be acceptable to use the original
OIDs issues for the RADIUS MIBs as the [sole] root for their
replacements?


--
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/>