Subject: RADIUS Errata #867 (RFC 4668)

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:09:23 -0700

[BA] IMHO, Alfred is correct that RFC 4668 covers both IPv4 and IPv6. 
Since the abstract makes this clear, I don't think that the title needs to be changed. 

With respect to the term "MIB module", I would agree with Alfred that the term
"MIB" would have been more appropriate.

Overall I'd recommend that this errata be accepted "Pending Revision". 

Status: Reported

Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes

Date Reported: 2006-11-06

misleading RFC title, including abuse of defined terms
(for RFCs 4668 - 4671)

IMHO, the RFC titles, "RADIUS ... MIB for IPv6" are misleading.
In fact, the new RFCs extend the RADIUS MIB modules to cover
IPv6, but they are not IPv6 specific!
Perhaps, better wording would have been "... for IPv4 and IPv6".

Furthermore, a very 'popular' clash of terms shines up here.
As specified in RFC 3410 and Part 1 of STD 62, RFC 3411, and
re-stated in the boilerplate Section 3, "The Internet-Standard
Management Framework", of all four RFCs, there's just one single
Management Information Base (MIB) comprised of various "MIB modules".
Thus, throughout the titles and the text bodies of the RFCs, the
proper term, "RADIUS ... MIB module" should be used instead of the
rather sluggish "RADIUS ... MIB".