Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switched Networks Version 1.0
draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Scott Hollenbeck |
2006-03-29
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2006-03-16
|
07 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by IESG Secretary |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot comment] To answer Allison: That would me we have to open up editing of RFC2613. And the immediate result would be a quite … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Allison Mankin |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] This can be settled by Bert/Dan to their own satisfaction; it does not have to come back to me: Could a Note to … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
2006-03-16
|
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2006-03-15
|
07 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
2006-03-15
|
07 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-14
|
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2006-03-14
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2006-03-14
|
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot comment] There are a few entries in the implementation report that list only one vendor's response: entPhysicalEntry. … [Ballot comment] There are a few entries in the implementation report that list only one vendor's response: entPhysicalEntry. | x | | | | N:1 | | | x | | N:M | | | x | | Apparently these are optional features that don't have an impact on interoperability. |
2006-03-14
|
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Scott Hollenbeck has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Scott Hollenbeck |
2006-03-13
|
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot discuss] There are a few entries in the implementation report that list only one vendor's response: entPhysicalEntry. … [Ballot discuss] There are a few entries in the implementation report that list only one vendor's response: entPhysicalEntry. | x | | | | N:1 | | | x | | N:M | | | x | | Are these anything to worry about? |
2006-03-13
|
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2006-03-08
|
07 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen |
2006-03-08
|
07 | Bert Wijnen | Ballot has been issued by Bert Wijnen |
2006-03-08
|
07 | Bert Wijnen | Created "Approve" ballot |
1999-04-08
|
07 | (System) | IESG has approved the document |
1999-03-01
|
07 | (System) | Last call sent |
1999-02-28
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
1999-02-28
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
1999-02-28
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
1999-02-17
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-07.txt |
1998-12-16
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-06.txt |
1998-11-04
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-05.txt |
1998-04-10
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-04.txt |
1997-09-15
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-03.txt |
1997-07-22
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-01.txt |