RE: draft-ietf-ngtrans-ipv4survey-01.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

As posted by Phil who is not subscribed

Phil... understood. I was not trying to blame you, I
was trying to get help from the members of this mailing list.

Bert 

------------
From phil@nesser.com Fri Aug 17 09:29:34 2001
From: "Philip J. Nesser II" <phil@nesser.com>
To: <mibs@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ngtrans-ipv4survey-01.txt
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:29:31 -0700

As the author of said draft, I heartily agree.  MY only caution is that the
draft up to this point does no analysis just looks at each RFC in a vacuum.
So it may state, RFC XXXX is broken and everyone knows that RFC YYYY already
fixes the problem, but there is no mention of it.  Also it tries to deal
with more than 900 RFC's spanning over 20 years.  I expect there to be a
large number of issues to pound out.

Looking forward to your comments.

--->  Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf
Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 7:58 AM
To: mibs@ops.ietf.org
Subject: draft-ietf-ngtrans-ipv4survey-01.txt


MIB authors and proponents may want to check this document.
It tries to give a summary of whihc RFCs are IPv4 dependent.
I think there are a number of errors in this document,
specifically in the MIB space.

I have tried to address these sections, which are all incorrect
I think (a copy of my email is on ngtrans mailing list and archives):

  3.58
  4.64
  5.367
  5.441
  5.537

I am sure there are more MIB or SNMP related documents that have
not been correctly evaluated. How about if authors of specific
RFCs take a look at them?

Bert