Subject: [BEHAVE] [behave] #19: Juergen's comments on new MIB module vs update existing MIB module

From: "behave issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:52:46 -0000

#19: Juergen's comments on new MIB module vs update existing MIB module

 As far as I recall, it was initially not clear whether there is consensus
 that the NAT-MIB is fatally flawed. (And the text that is now in section
 3.1 did not exist at that time in the current level of detail as far as I
 recall.)

 I suggest a consensus call is made by the chairs on this fundamental
 question. If there is consensus that the NAT-MIB is fatally flawed (and
 note that opinions of implementors in particular matter here), then
 declaring the MIB module in RFC 4008 historic (e.g. marking RFC
 4008 historic) and creating a new MIB module may indeed be the right thing
 to do.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:  j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-  |      Owner:  draft-ietf-behave-nat-
  university.de                      |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  nat-mib                  |    Version:  -06
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/trac/ticket/19>
behave <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/>