Fwd: Issues to bring to consensus

Hi -

There have been no responses to my request for input on the
open issues listed below.  I'm hopeful that someone will have
opinions about them.  If not, I will ask the MIB authors to
resolve the issues themselves and bring them back to the
working group for agreement.

Thanks,

Melinda


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Melinda Shore <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004  6:03:59 PM US/Eastern
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [midcom] Issues to bring to consensus
>
> 1) There was a proposal to replace the Session Table with an
> existing MIB (either the Target MIB or the Notification MIB
> can provide the same function).  The sense of the room in San
> Diego was to remove the Session Table.  Are there any objections?
>
> 2) There is a lack of agreement about how to treat idle timeouts
> in NATs.  The options are either to use the default idle timeout
> in the NAT or to made a timeout value mandatory in the MIB.  We
> were unable to come to consensus and this issue requires further
> discussion.
>
> 3) There was another timer issue about which we were unable to
> come to agreement, and that is whether or not the MaxIdleTime
> must be mandatory for the Policy Reserve Rule.  This also requires
> further discussion.
>
> Let's try to get these three issues closed in the next few weeks.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Melinda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>