Subject: [BEHAVE] Splitting of draft-ietf-behave-mib

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:36:04 -0400

draft-ietf-behave-mib 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib) has been 
undergoing AD-sponsored process. I have completed setting up an issue 
tracker based on the issues raised in the Behave Trac tickets #16-19 and 
the 45 comments generated by David Harrington in his detailed review. 
The entry point to that issuee tracker is at

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/trac/wiki/PostIssueTracker

One of the issues was procedural. The current draft deprecates all of 
the objects in the original NAT MIB module (RFC 4008) and then goes on 
to define new objects using the same MIB module name. There seems to be 
agreement that instead, there will be one I-D for the deprecation of 
NAT-MIB and a second I-D to define NAT-MIB-V2. RFC 4008 will be declared 
Historic.

Do I have the procedure right, and are there any other comments?

Tom Taylor

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:45:45 -0400

sounds cleaner

Scott

On Oct 18, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Tom Taylor <[email-masked]> wrote:

> draft-ietf-behave-mib (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib) has been undergoing AD-sponsored process. I have completed setting up an issue tracker based on the issues raised in the Behave Trac tickets #16-19 and the 45 comments generated by David Harrington in his detailed review. The entry point to that issuee tracker is at
> 
> One of the issues was procedural. The current draft deprecates all of the objects in the original NAT MIB module (RFC 4008) and then goes on to define new objects using the same MIB module name. There seems to be agreement that instead, there will be one I-D for the deprecation of NAT-MIB and a second I-D to define NAT-MIB-V2. RFC 4008 will be declared Historic.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg