RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

My proposal is to go ahead with the IESG LC on the existing documents
(all six of them) and have the comments submitted as LC comments. 

Anybody sees any problem? 

Dan




 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:01 PM
> To: stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be; Carl Kalbfleisch; 
> Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620
> 
> 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/>