RE: REMINDER: Call for review of RFC 2618bis-2621bis

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

Mmmm...

I also do not understand this
   radiusMIB OBJECT-IDENTITY
          STATUS  current
          DESCRIPTION
                "The OID assigned to RADIUS MIB work by the IANA."
           ::= { mib-2 67 }

   radiusAuthClientExtMIB OBJECT-IDENTITY
          STATUS  current
          DESCRIPTION
                "The OID assigned to RADIUS Extensions MIB work by
                 the IANA."
           ::= { mib-2 TBA }

   -- RFC Editor: replace TBA with IANA assigned OID value, and
   -- remove this note.

Why do we need/want 2 OID branches underneath mib-2?
Why can the extensions not be made just within the
radiusAuthClientMIB branch itself?

It seems like there is a lot to be checked.

more below:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 16:30
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: REMINDER: Call for review of RFC 2618bis-2621bis
> 
> 
> Bert Wijnen writes...
>  
> > So did anyone do MIB SYNTAX checking ...
> 
> I used this tool to check the MIB syntax:
> 
> http://wwwsnmp.cs.utwente.nl/ietf/mibs/validate/
> 

And that tool tells me:

   0     Segmentation Fault 
   48 2 `TBA' should start with a lower case letter 
      2  Object identifier element `TBA' name only allowed as first element 


> > I did a smidiff run that shows the below. I did not yet check,
> > but maybe it helps you as a WG to check.
> 
> I'll take a look at these.  Thanks.
> 

--
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/>