Subject: RE: [Hubmib] WG Status

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:20:15 +0300

Yes. 

Let me be clear, as said in the status message the WG should wrap-up
this work in the next three months.

Ed Beili please submit revised versions of: 
 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-04.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-02.txt
 
Dave Perkins - please review the updated versions of the following
documents and confirm whether the changes respond to the issues raised
in your MIB Doctor review:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-04.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-04.tx
t
 
Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:24 PM
> To: Hub MIB
> Subject: Re: [Hubmib] WG Status
> 
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > In WGLC, editor (Ed Beili) must submit new revisions for final WGLC:
> >  
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-04.tx
> > t 
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-02.tx
> > t
> 
> These are set to expire on 27 April 2006, so they need to get 
> updated very soon.  I've been following rfc3636bis and will 
> try to make a prompt review of the next revision ... but it 
> gets difficult when such a long time passes between revisions 
> because of the need to get back in sync with what we were doing.
> 
> //cmh
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hubmib mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
> 

_______________________________________________
Hubmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib