RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620

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

Stefaan DeCnodder writes...

> Dave, the current version 05 was intended for IESG review. Should we
> wait for the IESG review to be finished or submit a version 06 as soon
> as possible?

The suggestion for added granularity of the discontinuity timestamp
(i.e. per row) seems reasonable.  However, the MIBs in question (all six
of them) have completed RADEXT WGLC and are now in AD Review.  There may
be an opportunity for such comments to be made on at least some of these
MIBs as they go to IESG last call.  The editors should not be responding
to comments from the WG at this time.

I would like to ask the Shepherding AD, Dan Romascanu, whether he thinks
that the comments about additional granularity of the counter
discontinuity indicators are meritorious, and should be included in a
revised draft at this point in time?

-- Dave


--
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/>