Subject: Potential MIB work?

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 15:53:04 +0200

>From draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-02.txt:

  7.3.20  RADIUS MIB (RFC 2618)

  The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined.

  7.3.21  RADIUS Authentication Server MIB (RFC 2619)

  The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined.

There is more detail in the survey document itself.

So if a RADIUSEXT WG is formed, do we want to at least evaluate these?

Thanks,
Bert

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:48:01 -0700

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>[email-masked] and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

> So if a RADIUSEXT WG is formed, do we want to at least evaluate these?

Seems reasonable, although I think that the technical changes needed are
pretty minimal, with the busywork factor high ;-(

> Bert

~gwz

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither..." 
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless
they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." 
-- Voltaire