Management Information Base for Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Allison Mankin) Yes
(Jon Peterson) Yes
Comment (2003-09-18 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
To Ned: I would imagine it will be some time before this goes to Draft. ;) To Margaret: I think some changes are certainly warranted based on your comments - I'll take these back to the authors. On a few of the points, the TRIP MIB draft merely copies RFC1657, for better or for worse (perhaps for worse), just as TRIP copies from BGP.
(Bert Wijnen) Yes
Comment (2003-09-22 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
If the WG is respinning another rev (based on other IESG member discuss points), then pls also consider: - tripCfgProtocolVersion has a REFERENCE clause talking about RFC 3291. I think they mean RFC3219 instead. - tripNotifApplIndex has text in DESCRIPTION clause talking about RFC2788. probably better to add a REFERENCE clause to point to RFC2788 - The object tripCfgStorage has as DESCRITPION clause: DESCRIPTION "The storage type for this conceptual row." According to RFC2579, one MUST specify which columns must be writable when the value is permanent. So if none have to be writable in that case, then one can do with: DESCRIPTION "The storage type for this conceptual row. Conceptual rows having the value 'permanent' need not allow write-access to any columnar objects in the row."
(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection
(Steven Bellovin) No Objection
(Randy Bush) No Objection
(Margaret Cullen) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Ned Freed) No Objection
Comment (2003-09-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
General question: Is the use of RFC 2788 here (and probably elsewhere) going to mean it needs to advance to draft at some point?