Issue: RFC 2618bis-2621bis root OIDs

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Submitter name: David Nelson
Submitter email address: dnelson@enterasys.com
Date first submitted: September 15, 2005
Reference: https://psg.com/lists/radiusext/2005/msg00866.html
Document: 2618bis-00 through 2621bis-00
Comment type: 'T' Technical
Priority: 'S' Must fix
Section: 7, MIB Definitions
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

Bert Wijnen writes...

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?

Requested change:

Delete the new "TBA" roots under MIB-2 (for example
radiusAuthClientExtMIB) and locate the extended (new) MIB objects as the
next available OIDs under the existing IANA assignment for the
respective MIB.

--
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/>