Subject: Re: Last Call: DNS Server MIB Extensions to Historic

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:10:33 -0800 (PST)

[Resent with correct addresses]

>----------------Begin Forwarded Message----------------<

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:04:39 -0800 (PST)
From: "Erik Nordmark" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Last Call: DNS Server MIB Extensions to Historic 
To: "Jon Saperia" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

> 
> > 
> > The IESG has received a request to consider reclassifying the following
> > RFCs as Historic:
> > 
> > RFC1611 'DNS Server MIB Extensions'
> > RFC1612 'DNS Resolver MIB Extensions' 
> > 
> > The IESG will also consider publication of  Applicability Statement for
> > DNS MIB Extensions <draft-ietf-dnsext-dnsmib-historical-00.txt> as an
> > Informational RFC.
> > 
> 
> draft-ietf-dnsext-dnsmib-historical-00.txt, needs revision to be a
> useful document. While I do not support the move of 1611 and 1612 to
> historic and would rather that the documents be revised in light of
> current requirements, I am happy to work with Rob to revise the proposed
> document that explains the change in status.

Jon,

Can you provide some more detail on what you believe is wrong in
the current I-D?

It was clear from the rough concensus in dnsext that the WG doesn't
want to fix 1611 and 1612 but instead invites others to go off and form
design team(s) to come up with relatively complete proposals for replacement
MIBs.

Thanks,
   Erik
>----------------End Forwarded Message----------------<

to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.