RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620

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

Actually Bert's recommendation in the tracker was that the 02 versions
of the "bis" MIB docs could go to LC, with the AD review comments as
entering comments. What you suggest is even better, so I will wait for
the 03 round before issuing the LC. 

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:33 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be; Carl 
> Kalbfleisch
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); David Kessens
> Subject: RE: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620
> 
> Dab Romascanu writes...
> 
> > 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.
> 
> This is fine with me.  I wanted to clarify, however, that my 
> intent was to issue version -03 of the four "bis" MIB 
> documents, to bring them into "sync" with the dynauth MIBs at 
> -05, based on the AD comments already received.  I have yet 
> to complete that revision.
> 
> 
> 

--
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/>