[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-radext-rfc2618bis-03.txt
Carl Kalbfleisch writes...
> What is the status of this and the updates to 2619, 2620 and 2621?
All four documents are in AD Review.
> Have these already passed last call?
They have passed WG Last Call some time ago. The IESG may decide to
hold an IETF Last Call on all of these documents.
> 1) in this MIB I noticed that mosy complains about the definition of
> radiusAuthClientExtMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
> When I make the following change the syntax error is resolved.
RFC-2578
> indicates that the restricted enumeration is ok for INTEGER. Probably
an
> issue with mosy not interpreting the textual convention, but wanted to
> mention it in case it needs to be corrected somehow...
>
> OBJECT radiusAuthServerInetAddressType
> -- SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
> SYNTAX INTEGER { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
This correction was suggested by Bert Wijnen, and it passed the SMIv2
syntax checker that I use.
http://wwwsnmp.cs.utwente.nl/ietf/mibs/validate/
I suspect this is an issue with your compiler.
> 2) In the Accounting Client MIB I get a syntax error with mosy in the
> radiusAccClientExtMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE. However if I make
the
> following change it works. Again, Probably an issue with mosy...
>
> -- SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
> SYNTAX INTEGER { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
Ditto.
> 3) the accounting client MIB the first line of the MIB changed from
>
> RADIUS-ACC-CLIENT-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
>
> to
>
> RADIUS-ACCT-CLIENT-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
>
> (the T was added). Is this ok?
Ooops. No, it is not OK. This is a typo that will need to be corrected
before the document is published as an RFC. Good catch. Everyone else,
including me, has missed this so far. :-)
--
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/>