RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620

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

Carl Kalbfleisch writes...

> I realize that these MIBs are being updated,
> so perhaps we can add a discontinuity timer in a future revision. 

This is already an open issue from Area Director review of the revised
MIB drafts, so will be included in the next draft version.

> if so, I would suggest adding it per radius entry so that
> each server can have its own value.

That seems like a reasonable suggestion.

> One other point to note. We have found that radius servers respond
faster
> than 100th of a second. I'd suggest an update to the MIB where the
> response time is stored in micro-seconds. In addition, having the
minimum,
> maximum and average are also helpful. We are adding such values to our
> enterprise MIB, but would opt for standard attributes if they existed.

The revised MIBs have already been through WG last call and are now in
IESG review.  Does the WG wish to recall the documents from the
publication requested state to consider adding this kind of new feature?


--
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/>