Re: RFC 3877 errata

I responded to sharon already

miket

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> It looks to me that all issues raised by Michael were included, but best
> would be for Michael himself to confirm. 
>
> Dan
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] 
>> [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
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Yes, sorry I've been a tad distracted. I've just compiled the 
>> discussion up in a form that will make it easier for me to 
>> review. If those who were following can take a quick look to 
>> make sure I did not miss anything, I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sharon 
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] 
>> [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
>>
>> Last I remember Sharon was planning to review the errata and 
>> propose resolutions. 
>>
>> Dan
>>  
>>
>>     
>>> -----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
>>>
>>> Hi -
>>>
>>> Last month there was a flurry of messages regarding the 
>>>       
>> errata for RFC
>>
>>     
>>> 3877 (Alarm MIB).  Has there been any progress in resolving these 
>>> issues?
>>>
>>> Randy
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
>