Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switched Networks Version 1.0
draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-07
Yes
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Bill Fenner)
(Brian Carpenter)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Mark Townsley)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2006-03-16)
Unknown
To answer Allison: That would me we have to open up editing of RFC2613. And the immediate result would be a quite sizeable effort to live up to all the lastest boilerplate, admin, IPR, split-in-references, etc etc type of bureaucratic work. The WG did consider that option and concluded against it. So my solution is: advance in grade AS IS.
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-03-16)
Unknown
This can be settled by Bert/Dan to their own satisfaction; it does not have to come back to me: Could a Note to the RFC Editor specify that a risk in this MIB includes not just obtaining sensitive control information but actually controlling the port copy settings. This means opportunities for eavesdropping and hijacking. We expect MIB Security Considerations to describe more of the risks now than they did in 1999.
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-03-14)
Unknown
There are a few entries in the implementation report that list only one vendor's response: entPhysicalEntry.<N> | x | | | | N:1 | | | x | | N:M | | | x | | Apparently these are optional features that don't have an impact on interoperability.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown