sounds cleaner Scott
On Oct 18, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Tom Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > draft-ietf-behave-mib (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib) > has been undergoing AD-sponsored process. I have completed setting up an > issue tracker based on the issues raised in the Behave Trac tickets #16-19 > and the 45 comments generated by David Harrington in his detailed review. The > entry point to that issuee tracker is at > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/trac/wiki/PostIssueTracker > > One of the issues was procedural. The current draft deprecates all of the > objects in the original NAT MIB module (RFC 4008) and then goes on to define > new objects using the same MIB module name. There seems to be agreement that > instead, there will be one I-D for the deprecation of NAT-MIB and a second > I-D to define NAT-MIB-V2. RFC 4008 will be declared Historic. > > Do I have the procedure right, and are there any other comments? > > Tom Taylor > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
