[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ballot: Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier Ref erence to Draft Standard (Revised)
- To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Subject: Re: Ballot: Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier Ref erence to Draft Standard (Revised)
- From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:54:17 -0400
- Cc: Internet Engineering Steering Group <iesg@ietf.org>
In message <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15501CD0606@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.c
om>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" writes:
>Steve, this is an RFC that is being advanced to DS, they are
>not doing a new I-D. Do we want tthem to go through the
>overhead of a new I-D (which then becomes a new RFC to
>obsolete the current RFC2895) ??
>If so... there will possibly quite afew more admin and
>bureaucratic changes we want... because of our new NITs and
>all that.
>
>I'd prefer if we can just advance an existing RFC.
>
Hmm -- ok, I guess.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)