headers
Randy Presuhn | 4 Feb 2009 04:20
Picon

RFC 3877 errata

Hi -

Last month there was a flurry of messages regarding the
errata for RFC 3877 (Alarm MIB).  Has there been any
progress in resolving these issues?

Randy
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 4 Feb 2009 13:38
Favicon

Re: RFC 3877 errata

Last I remember Sharon was planning to review the errata and propose
resolutions. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: disman-bounces <at> ietf.org 
> [mailto:disman-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:20 AM
> To: Disman
> Subject: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata
> 
> Hi -
> 
> Last month there was a flurry of messages regarding the 
> errata for RFC 3877 (Alarm MIB).  Has there been any progress 
> in resolving these issues?
> 
> Randy
> 
>
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Sharon Chisholm | 4 Feb 2009 16:44
Favicon

Re: another question about alarmMib..

Hi

The DataAndTime index is just a convenience for sorting and/or
filtering. It is not necessary to ensure uniqueness of entries.

Sharon 

-----Original Message-----
From: disman-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:disman-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Michael Thatcher
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:05 PM
To: disman <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Disman] another question about alarmMib..

the alarmActiveTable is indexed by alarmListName, alarmDataAndTime,
alarmActiveIndex

the alarmActiveVariableTable is indexed by alarmListName,
alarmActiveIndex, alarmActiveVariableIndex.

How come alarmDataAndTime are not an index into the
alarmActiveVariableTable, since this table by definition has the varbind
objects from the corresponding entry in alarmActiveTable?

This also seems to imply that alarmActiveIndex is always unique
regardless of alarmDataAndTime.  Is this intentional?

miket
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sharon Chisholm | 4 Feb 2009 15:47
Favicon

Re: RFC 3877 errata

Hi

Yes, sorry I've been a tad distracted. I've just compiled the discussion
up in a form that will make it easier for me to review. If those who
were following can take a quick look to make sure I did not miss
anything, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Sharon 

-----Original Message-----
From: disman-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:disman-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:38 AM
To: Randy Presuhn; Disman
Subject: Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata

Last I remember Sharon was planning to review the errata and propose
resolutions. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: disman-bounces <at> ietf.org
> [mailto:disman-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:20 AM
> To: Disman
> Subject: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 4 Feb 2009 20:19
Favicon

Re: RFC 3877 errata

It looks to me that all issues raised by Michael were included, but best
would be for Michael himself to confirm. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: disman-bounces <at> ietf.org 
> [mailto:disman-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 4:47 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Randy Presuhn; Disman
> Subject: Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata
> 
> Hi
> 
> Yes, sorry I've been a tad distracted. I've just compiled the 
> discussion up in a form that will make it easier for me to 
> review. If those who were following can take a quick look to 
> make sure I did not miss anything, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sharon 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: disman-bounces <at> ietf.org 
> [mailto:disman-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:38 AM
> To: Randy Presuhn; Disman
> Subject: Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Michael Thatcher | 4 Feb 2009 21:12

Re: RFC 3877 errata

I responded to sharon already

miket

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> It looks to me that all issues raised by Michael were included, but best
> would be for Michael himself to confirm. 
>
> Dan
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: disman-bounces <at> ietf.org 
>> [mailto:disman-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 4:47 PM
>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Randy Presuhn; Disman
>> Subject: Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Yes, sorry I've been a tad distracted. I've just compiled the 
>> discussion up in a form that will make it easier for me to 
>> review. If those who were following can take a quick look to 
>> make sure I did not miss anything, I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sharon 
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 6 Feb 2009 06:39
Picon

Fw: Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378 Problem

Hi -

Forwarded for your information.
Please followup on the ietf <at> ietf.org list rather than on this mailing list.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ed Juskevicius" <edj.etc <at> gmail.com>
> To: <ietf <at> ietf.org>; <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>; <wgchairs <at> ietf.org>; <iab <at> iab.org>;
<iesg <at> ietf.org>; <rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org>
> Cc: "Trustees" <trustees <at> ietf.org>; "Contreras,Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras <at> wilmerhale.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 9:28 PM
> Subject: Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378 Problem
>
> The IETF Trustees met via telechat on February 5th to decide on some
> proposed revisions to the "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents"
> policy, based on comments received from the community in the last two
> weeks.  Please recall this work is being done to provide a work-around for
> authors having the 'pre-5378 problem'.
> 
> The telechat was productive.  The Trustees reached consensus to do the
> following:
> 
> 1)  Clarify the copyright text at the beginning of the BSD license in
> Section 4.1 to read as follows:
> 
> Copyright (c) <insert year> IETF Trust and the persons identified as its
> authors.  All rights reserved.
> 2)  Replace the word "and" by the word "or" in one place so that the last
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 13 Feb 2009 10:10
Picon

Fw: Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378 Problem

Hi -

Forwarded for your edification and enjoyment.
Editors, note the effective date as well.

Randy
----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ed Juskevicius" <edj.etc <at> gmail.com>
> To: <ietf <at> ietf.org>; <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>; <wgchairs <at> ietf.org>; <iab <at> iab.org>;
<iesg <at> ietf.org>; <rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org>
> Cc: "Trustees" <trustees <at> ietf.org>; "Contreras,Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras <at> wilmerhale.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378 Problem
>
> I am pleased to announce that the IETF Trustees have just finished work on a
> revision to our "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents" policy.  The
> revision includes optional new legend text in Section 6.c.iii of the
> policy to serve as a work-around for people experiencing the "pre-5378
> problem."
> 
> Please note the newly approved policy is dated 2009-02-12.  Please also note
> that the Effective Date of this revised policy has been set to 2009-02-15.
> The old policy (effective from November 10, 2008) remains in force until
> 00h00 UTC on February 15th.
> 
> The approved text is available now on IETF Trust website at
>  http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
> 
> Please look for the document dated 2009-02-12, just below the heading
> labeled "DRAFT Policy and Procedures Being Developed."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 23 Feb 2009 19:18
Picon

Fw: Version of xml2rfc to produce drafts with new pre5378 IPR clause

Hi -

fwd fyi

Randy

> From: "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy <at> cisco.com>
> To: "IETF discussion list" <ietf <at> ietf.org>; "Working Group Chairs" <wgchairs <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 10:32 PM
> Subject: Version of xml2rfc to produce drafts with new pre5378 IPR clause
>
> 
> The XML2RFC folks are busy producing a good version of xml2rfc that  
> deals with the new license statements. However in the meantime I have  
> a hacked up version that does seem to work at least some of the time.
> 
> You can find it at
> http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/xml2rfc/1.34pre2-fluffy/xml2rfc.tcl
> 
> Hopefully this will soon be obsoleted when the real xml2rfc tool gets  
> updated.
> 
> If you are trying to do a draft that has pre 5378 text in it, you can  
> set the ipr attribute in the <rfc> element to ipr="pre5378Trust200902"  
> and it will produce a txt file that id submission tool will accept.
> 
> Example xml at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jennings-http-srv-01.xml 
>   and resulting txt file at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jennings-http-srv-01.txt
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 26 Feb 2009 03:34
Picon

Fw: Spam in mailing list archives

Hi -

Good news for those who use the disman and agentx archives!

Randy

> From: "Steve Young via RT" <ietf-action <at> ietf.org>
...
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:08 AM
> Subject: [rt.amsl.com #12269] Spam in mailing list archives 
>
> Hi all,
> 
> You are receiving this because at some point you opened a ticket
> regarding spam in an IETF mailing list archive.  All the tickets were
> merged into one.
> 
> As you may be aware, Jim Galvin and I made changes to the
> mailman/mhonarc architecture which has eliminated new spam appearing in
> the mailing list archives.
> 
> I will be working my way through the web mail archives and manually
> removing spam from them.  I started with the mailing list archives which
> you opened tickets for, so you should find that these archives are now
> more-or-less free of spam...
> 
> ietf 
> ietf-announce
> agentx 
> disman
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane