RE: Potential MIB work?

["Glen Zorn" <gwz@cisco.com>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org <mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
writes:

>> From draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-02.txt:
> 
>   7.3.20  RADIUS MIB (RFC 2618)
> 
>   The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be
> defined. 
> 
> 
>   7.3.21  RADIUS Authentication Server MIB (RFC 2619)
> 
>   The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be
> defined. 
> 
> There is more detail in the survey document itself.
> 
> So if a RADIUSEXT WG is formed, do we want to at least evaluate these?

Seems reasonable, although I think that the technical changes needed are
pretty minimal, with the busywork factor high ;-(

> 
> Thanks,
> Bert

~gwz

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither..." 
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless
they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." 
-- Voltaire