RE: FW: Newly updated draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-19.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Mmm... I now wanted to bvote YES, but I cannot find that a
ballot/evaluation email was ever sent to us, was it?
If so, then I seem to have either lost it or never received
it. I seem unable to vote online as well, or at least I cannot
find how to do it.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:Erik.Nordmark@sun.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 8 juli 2003 14:19
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Erik Nordmark
> Subject: RE: FW: Newly updated draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-19.txt
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I've added this using the tracker. So as long as the 
> automagic stuff
> works it will be announced with John Flick and the rfc-ed note.
> 
>   Erik
> 
> 
> >----- Begin Included Message -----<
> 
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:21:34 +0200 
> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> Subject: RE: FW: Newly updated draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-19.txt
> To: "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)"
> <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> 
> This would be a list of RFC-Editor notes to fix what.
> I think needs fixing. With such an RFC-Editor note I
> will vote YES. And thanks for adding John Flick as
> IESG reviewer.
> 
> RFC-Editor notes:
> - Page 73/74, pls change
>   OLD:
>    atmIlmiSrvcRegEntry OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX       AtmIlmiSrvcRegEntry
>        MAX-ACCESS   not-accessible
>        STATUS       current
>        DESCRIPTION
>           "Information about a single service provider that 
> is available to
>           the user-side of an adjacent device through the ILMI."
>        INDEX { atmIlmiSrvcRegIndex,
>                atmIlmiSrvcRegServiceID,
>                atmIlmiSrvcRegAddressIndex }
>   NEW:
>    atmIlmiSrvcRegEntry OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX       AtmIlmiSrvcRegEntry
>        MAX-ACCESS   not-accessible
>        STATUS       current
>        DESCRIPTION
>           "Information about a single service provider that 
> is available
>           to the user-side of an adjacent device through the ILMI.
> 
>           Implementors need to be aware that if the size of
>           atmIlmiSrvcRegServiceID exceeds 113 sub-identifiers 
> then OIDs
>           of column instances in this table will have more 
> than 128 sub-
>           identifiers and cannot be accessed using SNMPv1, SNMPv2c, or
>           SNMPv3."
>        INDEX { atmIlmiSrvcRegIndex,
>                atmIlmiSrvcRegServiceID,
>                atmIlmiSrvcRegAddressIndex }
> 
> -Pls remove obsolete and non-needed (there are no citations) 
> references:
>  Remove from the Normative References:
>  [RFC1905], [RFC1906], [RFC2571], [RFC2572], [RFC2573], [RFC2574],
>  [RFC2575]
>  Remove from the Informative References:
>  [RFC1157], [RFC2570], [RFC1155], RFC1212], [RFC1215], [RFC1901]
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:Erik.Nordmark@sun.com]
> > Sent: maandag 7 juli 2003 22:44
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Erik Nordmark (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: FW: Newly updated draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-19.txt
> > 
> > 
> > > I see we have it on next weeks IESG agenda.
> > 
> > > I see no RFC-Editor note or anything to address the
> > 
> > > comments in my email at the bottom. At least the 
> > 
> > > "obsolete" references should be removed. 
> > 
> > > Would you want me to compose a list of what needs to be done?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Oops - did I miss some comments.
> > 
> > Don't have datatracker access at the moment - will look for 
> > things if you
> > 
> > don't already have a list.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Also, John Flick has done the (initial) MIB Doctor reviews
> > 
> > > for us. It would be good to acknoledge that in the 
> > 
> > > announcement, e.g. change
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I looked at old email for a mib doctor but I didn't find any. 
> > Thanks for 
> > 
> > reminding me - I'll update the template.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   Erik
> > 
> 
> >----- End Included Message -----<
>