[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Request for Review of RFC 3576 MIB documents

Nelson, David wrote: 
The RFC really changes the traditional concept of what elements behave
as a RADIUS server and which as the RADIUS client.  The original


drafts

had that clear and I didnt realize that the final versions actually
didnt emphasize it.  So we tried to clarify that with the MIB and
mentioned upfront what the new terms actually represented.


If there are errata in RFC 3576 (or at least the need for substantial
clarification) then it SHOULD NOT be handled in the related MIBs. It
SHOULD be handled in the Issues and Fixes draft, or if required,
possibly in a separate 3576bis draft. Note, however that RFC 3576 is an
Informational RFC, that was published as an individual submission. Any
revisions or clarifications thereto handled in the RADEXT WG would be
subject to WG consensus.


I agree that the original RFC should be rectified as well. However, I am not sure whether we should carry the confusion into all the related documents and then add erratas to them as well.

Murtaza



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>


--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>