Subject: disman WG last call: notification log mib

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:01:22 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

As far as I can tell, nothing new has surfaced regarding
draft-ietf-disman-notif-log-mib-09.txt since February 22.
The document's editor has already posted to the list his
take on the issues.

So, let's have a two-week WG last call on this document
(modulo the updates Bob Stewart has already outlined)
with the WG last call closing at 1999-03-25 01:00:00 UTC
(that's 5 pm Pacific standard time on Wednesday, March 24).

As part of this last call, I would like to call for WG
consensus on the following concerns:
   1) Does the naming strategy in section 3.1.2 suffer from
      the failure mode documented in the minutes from the
      Orlando WG meeting?
   2) Is it a problem for the access control checks for log
      entries to be different depending on whether they
      originated locally or remotely?
   
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]     http://www.bmc.com
 Voice: +1 408 616-3100  BMC Software, Inc.           965 Stewart Drive
 Fax:   +1 408 616-3101  Sunnyvale, California 94086  USA
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is coincidental.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:15:37 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:01:22 -0800 (PST)
> From: Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: disman WG last call: notification log mib
> 
> Hi -
> 

I have seen no further comments on this document.  I have received no
requests for additional time to review this document.  The WG last
call period on this document has passed.

>       originated locally or remotely?
...

I believe that the working group concensus is that since we're not
prescribing the use of the specific naming strategy from 3.1.2, that
question (1) is not a problem to be solved.

Furthermore, I believe that there have been no vocal objections to the
asymmetry described in (2), which was also discussed in Minneapolis.

If anyone believes either of these statements to be incorrect, please
speak up NOW.

When the editor delivers the updated text, I intend to inform our Area
Directors that we would like them to take it to the IESG for consideration
as a Proposed Standard.