[cgl_discussion] POC 11/19/03 meeting mintues

Steven Dake sdake at mvista.com
Wed Nov 19 10:13:19 PST 2003


Venkata,

I have that in the errata, although a slightly different form.
Thanks
-steve
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 10:57, Venkata Jagana wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding SNMP MIB Item, I had an AR earlier. I have provided
> a modified requirement on Nov 5th and assumed that you are including
> this in the errata list. In case, you missed it, here is the corresponding
> link:
> http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/cgl_discussion/2003-November/001653.html
> 
> In case, you don't have access to the link, here is the corresponding text:
> 
> >>AR Venkata to provide updated requirement.
> 
> Since it was decided in PoC meeting today to add note(s) to developers
> instead of changing a requirement, here is the corresponding text for
> consideration in the errata or whatever document, PoC will come up with.
> 
> "There is currently an on-going effort within IETF to combine IPv4 and
> IPv6 MIBs into corresponding unified MIBs (i.e.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update-04.txt
> for IP,
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-04.txt
> for TCP,
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-01.txt
> for UDP).  The current versions (a.k.a. work-in-progress documents) of
> these unified documents are currently expected within IETF to become
> proposed standards soon and thus would be replacing the current standard
> RFC's (which will then be marked obsolete) for these MIBs as specified in
> SVC 1.4 requirement.
> 
> Hence, the developers are encouraged to implement based on these unified
> work-in-progress MIB documents (ptrs above) and thus continue to make
> changes until these draft standards become proposed standards.
> "
> 
> Thanks,
> Venkat
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                                                
>                       Steven Dake                                                                                                              
>                       <sdake at mvista.com>                To:       "Fleischer, Julie N" <julie.n.fleischer at intel.com>                           
>                       Sent by:                          cc:       cgl_discussion at osdl.org                                                      
>                       cgl_discussion-bounces at lis        Subject:  RE: [cgl_discussion] POC 11/19/03 meeting mintues                            
>                       ts.osdl.org                                                                                                              
>                                                                                                                                                
>                                                                                                                                                
>                       11/19/2003 09:23 AM                                                                                                      
>                       Please respond to sdake                                                                                                  
>                                                                                                                                                
>                                                                                                                                                
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 10:13, Fleischer, Julie N wrote:
> > > Attendees:
> > > Steve @ MontaVista
> > > Ge @ Sun
> > > Stefano @ Nokia
> > >
> > > Attendees decided since not enough attendees, meeting cancelled.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -steve
> >
> > Steve -
> > Sorry I didn't make it (I had a meeting run over.).  Sorry for
> > not letting you know beforehand it was a possibility.  All
> > the errata in the agenda looked good to me.  For the STD.2.20,
> > I'd still propose completely removing the sentence, as you
> > captured.
> >
> > Also, on the errata we've already discussed, I thought I
> > remembered a timeline of publication before sending to specs
> > on 12/1.  Are those errata available now?  Or, were you
> > waiting for feedback on the outstanding items first?  (I ask
> > because of the SNMP MIBS item.)
> >
> I would have liked to have the errata out by now, but not surprisingly
> it is a big job...  I should have a draft by Friday (since
> today/tomorrow are consumed by the f2f in Plano.)
> Thanks
> -steve
> > - Julie
> >
> > **These views are not necessarily those of my employer.**
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 




More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list