Re: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620

[Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:00:39PM -0400, Nelson, David wrote:
> 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?

RADIUS can hardly be the only potentially distributed application with
this problem.  Perhaps mib-doctors can be asked how others have solved
it, or determined that such internal issues must be kept hidden.

Barney Wolff

--
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/>