Re: RFC 3877 errata

It looks to me that all issues raised by Michael were included, but best
would be for Michael himself to confirm.=20

Dan
=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]=20
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 4:47 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Randy Presuhn; Disman
> Subject: Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata
>=20
> Hi
>=20
> Yes, sorry I've been a tad distracted. I've just compiled the=20
> discussion up in a form that will make it easier for me to=20
> review. If those who were following can take a quick look to=20
> make sure I did not miss anything, I'd appreciate it.
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Sharon=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]=20
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:38 AM
> To: Randy Presuhn; Disman
> Subject: Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata
>=20
> Last I remember Sharon was planning to review the errata and=20
> propose resolutions.=20
>=20
> Dan
> =20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:20 AM
> > To: Disman
> > Subject: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata
> >=20
> > Hi -
> >=20
> > Last month there was a flurry of messages regarding the=20
> errata for RFC
>=20
> > 3877 (Alarm MIB).  Has there been any progress in resolving these=20
> > issues?
> >=20
> > Randy
> >=20
> >=20
>=20