Subject: [BEHAVE] nat-mib-05 security considerations

From: "ietfdbh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 23:43:50 -0400

Hi,

I notice that you have used a crafted security considerations section rather
than using the boilerplate available at
https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security#

I haven't seen anything that makes me believe the policy has changed.
You really should use the boilerplate, and fill it in in the manner
described.
It took significant negotiation between the various slates of OPS and SEC
Ads to craft the boilerplate.
Some of the text in your sec cons is not consistent with best current
practices.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
+1-603-828-1401

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
David Harrington
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 4:51 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [BEHAVE] nat-mib-05

Hi,

I ran the nat-mib-05 through libsmi tools, and it reported errors.
I'm having some issues with my use if libsmi on a new machine, so there
might be some false positives in my results, But I manually checked a couple
and they do appear to be errors.
	(REVISION versus LAST-Update; NatNotifications appears to be
undefined; natPoolIndex should be not-accessible) Have you run the MIB
through the libsmi tools?
(http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/tools/)
Have you checked the MIB against the guidelines in RFC4181?

David Harrington
[email-masked]
+1-603-828-1401

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave