I'm resending this because it didn't seem to make it out the first time.
My apologies if you do get it twice.
I'm adding the AVT WG to this message to get people's comments there.
I've reset the subject line. In summary, Michael warns that we will live
to regret reassigning some of the event cod
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> I do not believe that his comment intended to be 'discouraging'
> and certainly did not say 'you can't review', but just made the
> point that on MIB-related subjects, this reference should be
> consulted.
Indeed. The point I was trying to make is
Hi Keith,
Yup, I agree with your comments.
> Agreed, and because it is appropriate to list RFC3410 as
Informative,
> it is also appropriate to use SNMP as an example of a remote network
> management protocol for transporting MIB data. I will refer to this
> point multiple times below.
Agreed,
Hi Dave,
> It is appropriate in a MIB module to list RFC2578-80 (SMIv2) as
> Normative, since they define the language used in the MIB.
Agreed.
> It is appropriate in a MIB module to list RFC3410 as Informative,
> because SNMP is not the only protocol that can transport MIB data, in
> accordanc
Ok. In that case, you are fine. The MIB Rx is the MIB Doctor Review
group. Your AD will introduce you to them somewhere in the process.
Ron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> Thanks for the review, see below for some answers
>
> Ron Bonica wrote:
>
>> I am the assi
The document was just discussed in the IESG telechat.
Brian has yet to read Keith's other mail, but it looks that (based on my
rendition) the chances for Brian to accept Keith's arguments are good.
With David accepting Keith proposed edits in this mail, the way is paved
for me clearing the DISC
I'm adding the AVT WG to this message to get people's comments there.
I've reset the subject line. In summary, Michael warns that we will live
to regret reassigning some of the event codes. We should either retire
the unused 2833 event codes permanently or at least make them the last
to be reas
Thanks. That is very clear and I can clear my discuss.
Brian
Keith McCloghrie wrote:
FYI.
Keith.
---
Forwarded message:
From: Keith McCloghrie
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Carpenter)
Date: Thu, 8
FYI.
Keith.
---
Forwarded message:
> From: Keith McCloghrie
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Carpenter)
> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 08:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECT
Just for clarification, Mike Heard is the author of RFC 4181 which is
the reference document for MIB Doctor reviews. The MIB Doctors team is
providing 'public service' with reviews to the IETF communities, MIB
Doctors and Gen-Art are on the same side on this issue. Mike had a great
contribution wit
Completely agree with Michael, no humility about it. As usual
authors are certainly allowed to ignore comments with import
that is not consistent with their expert knowledge.
We do provide a pointer to a FAQ that explains why we are doing
a review, and it's alright if you haven't read that. :-
I do that selectively, not systematically, since what goes in
the tracker as *my* comment needs to be something I will stand
behind. And sometimes (not referring to this case or reviewer
in particular) I decide that the Gen-ART comments aren't of
enough concern to be put in the tracker. My choice,
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the review, see below for some answers
Ron Bonica wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for:
draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-server-mib-05
-and-
draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-client-mib-05
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/
I agree.
Dan
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> gen-art@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EM
> I actually think the comments from David
> Harrington are more critical. Mine takes just a simple decision, his
> comments are more far-reaching thus harder to evaluate and entail a
> more substantial change if accepted.
>
> -MAP
>
> P.S. This is on _today's_ agenda, right?
Apparently
Yes, GEN-ART reviewers are expected to be generalists
and looking for issues on the basis of general knowledge
and common sense. They aren't supposed to be doing the
job of specialist reviewers, but of course there can be
issues on the borderline. No blame, no shame, please.
Brian
Michael A.
Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Michael,
I am leaving to the authors of the document to answer your question
first.
It also would be useful for the Gen-Art review to be included in the
tracker as a DISCUSS or COMMENT. Brian, do you intent to do it?
I do that selectively, not systematically, si
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:51:38 +0300
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It also would be useful for the Gen-Art review to be included in the
tracker as a DISCUSS or COMMENT. Brian, do you intent to do it?
GenART reviews are only advisory, it's up to Brian how to use the
Michael,
I am leaving to the authors of the document to answer your question
first.
It also would be useful for the Gen-Art review to be included in the
tracker as a DISCUSS or COMMENT. Brian, do you intent to do it?
Dan
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael A. Patton [mailto:[EM
If I understand your referenced message, it is only responding to one
of my points, the minor comment about the wording of and
classification of the references in Section 2. And you forwarded on
to the MIB doctors because the referenced text is standard
boilerplate.
Well, if it's standard boilerp
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 10:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "C. M. Heard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In my humble opinion ANY group in the IETF that reviews MIB
documents should be obliged to follow RFC 4181/BCP 111.
In my humble opinion, it is completely unreasonable to expect GenART
members to be int
21 matches
Mail list logo
