Re: WG last call: Coex draft

Hi David,

Mike has answered my question and I have no issue with the document you have cited below.

Regards,

Mark

"Harrington, David" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Your history raises the question of which document you are using. The series has evolved through numerous document filenames. The correct document for the last call is ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2-02.txt.
>
> Rather than asking people to hunt down past emails on the topic that discuss earlier documents, can you spell out your concerns anew as part of the last call process? Is there something in the current document to which you object, and if so, what is the specific objection? I think this would make it easier for the chairs to verify that all concerns are being addressed.
>
> Thanks,
> dbh
> ---
> David Harrington
> [email protected]
> co-chair, IETF SNMPv3 WG
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Ellison [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 9:36 AM
> > To: C. M. Heard; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: WG last call: Coex draft
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > "C. M. Heard" wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Mark Ellison wrote:
> > > > I had posted an observation regarding technical discrepancie with
> > > > respect to the coex draft on this email list 11/22/2002
> > > > (thread="clarification request: V2->V1 Trap conversion")
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps someone could address these concerns during last call?
> > >
> > > Maybe I am being thick, but it was not clear to me from reading that
> > > thread what problem you were pointing out.  It's true that rfc 2576
> > > and the current coex draft don't handle notifications with Counter64
> > > variables in them in the same way as did rfc 2089, but that was a
> > > deliberate change.
> > >
> > > //cmh
> >
> > Thanks for the reply- its more likely I'm the dumb bunny though,
> >
> > What I'm unable to find is a trail of this deliberate change.
> >
> > In reviewing the coex-00 draft  (~aug-07-1998) the language in the
> > relevant section (4.2) said the translation fails, and the
> > consequences
> > of a failed translation depend on the situation in which the
> > translation
> > is being performed..
> >
> > In the thread, "Coexistence- Counter64 and SNMPv1" (~sept-24-1998
> > through oct-14-1998) discussion on this issue occured, and it appeared
> > that a rough concensus was achieved to remove the Counter64 varbind,
> > and, to send the notification as an SNMPv1 trap.
> >
> > In the coex-01 draft (~nov-11-1998), the coex-02 draft (~nov-23-1998),
> > and, the coex-03 draft (~feb-10-1999) the language in the relevant
> > section (3.2) was changed to specify removal of the Counter64 varbind.
> >
> > Then, in coex-04 (~may-21-1999) the language in relevant section (3.2)
> > was changed to specify the notification cannot be sent using SNMPv1.
> >
> > I'm unable to find any thread in my SNMPv3 email archive
> > discussing the
> > change reflected in coex-04, nor did I see anything in the
> > minutes from
> > Orlando or Minnesota WG meetings discussing the change reflected in
> > coex-04.
> >
> > While there is likely such a trail, I am unable to find it,
> > and request
> > your kind help in locating this trail.
> >
> > Thanks, and best regards for a happy and peaceful new year!
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >