Subject: RE: reminder: disman docs for "proposed"

From: "Ramanathan R. Kavasseri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 12:07:12 -0700

At 12:09 PM 6/8/00 -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
>Hi -
>
>> Message-ID: 
><[email-masked]>
>> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
>> To: [email-masked], Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: RE: reminder: disman docs for "proposed"
>> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:46:07 +0200 
>> List-Id: IETF disman Working Group mailing list <[email-masked]>
>...
>> Before I do the IETF Last Call, I would indeed want to see
>> the SMIv2 errors fixed. Other typo fixes can go along with
>> them, but they can also be done at a later time.
>> I would also prefer to fix SMI compile warnings if possible.
>...
>
>This is fine with me.  In addition to the fixes Frank has
>identified (which are fine with me), here are the other typos
>and potential IETF last-call issues that I've become aware of:
>

[...snipped out other items which I've done already...]

>technical issue, discussed at WG meetings but not reflected
>in document:
>18) draft-ietf-disman-notif-log-mib-16.txt> pages 4/5
>    Heirarchically structured log names have been repeatedly
>    shown to have subtle pitfalls.  The approach the draft
>    recommends can produce surprises when the first subid of
>    the second index looks like punctuation, etc.  For example,
>    with { nlmLogName, nlmLogIndex, nlmLogVariableIndex
>    }, nlmLogIndex could have the same value as "-", and
>    nlmLogVariableIndex could match a particular subgroup
>    name, thus (inappropriately) granting access

Alas, Pittsburgh will be the first time I attend a disman WG meeting :-(
So I'm unaware of what was the agreed upon change. Can someone
send the proposed change to me?

>editorial omission:
>21)  draft-ietf-disman-notif-log-mib-16.txt> page 24: what
>     is the condition for notificationLogDateGroup?

[*] Couldn't follow what was wrong here?

Thanks,

Ram