---- Original Message ----- From: "Benoit Claise" <[email protected]> To: "RFC Errata System" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:23
> Dear all, > > The facts: > - The MIB doctors advised not to publish MIB modules under snmpModules > any longer. IANA updated the registry information. See > http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-number s-61 > - RFC 7360 is published with a mistake. The MIB module should have been > published under mib-2.235 (as advised by the MIB doctors) but the > document mentions: snmpModules.235 Benoit Mutter, mutter: it is a shame that the MIB Doctors did not tell us of this change! I carefully checked the I-D when it first appeared and was satisfied that the assignment was in exactly the right place, using all the information available to me so I think that the I-D was spot on. And that it remained correct thoughout its life. And of course we are now wasting valuable resources making a 'right' 'wrong'! Is there anything else we have not been told, by e-mail, RFC or I-D, that might waste our time in future:-( Tom Petch > - The IANA registry is actually correct. snmpUsmHmacSha2MIB is under > mib-2.235 > See http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml > - Solving this issue with an errata doesn't work: indeed MIB modules are > extracted from RFC, and used within scripts. > > Discussing with Michelle (IANA) and the IESG, we had no other choices > than obsoleting this RFC and re-issuing a new one. Hence this errata and > draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-00. > <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-n ew/> > > One change to keep in mind for the next version: > OLD: > > REVISION "201508130000Z" -- 13 August 2015, midnight > DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published asRFC 7630 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7630>" > ::= { snmpModules 235 } > > NEW: > > REVISION ... new date > DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published asRFC xxxx <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7630>" > ::= { mib-2 235 } > > The way forward is to publish a new draft ASAP with the above > correction, to have a one week IETF LC, and to publish the new RFC. At > that point (and not before because we don't have a replacement RFC), we > will obsolete RFC 7360. > > Regards, Benoit > > The following errata report has been verified for RFC7630, > > "HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in the User-based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3". > > > > -------------------------------------- > > You may review the report below and at: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7630&eid=4509 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Status: Verified > > Type: Technical > > > > Reported by: Johannes Merkle <[email protected]> > > Date Reported: 2015-10-20 > > Verified by: Benoit Claise (IESG) > > > > Section: 8 and 10 > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > snmpModules 235 > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > mib-2 235 > > > > Notes > > ----- > > IANA registered snmpUsmHmacSha2MIB under mib-2.235 (as advised by the MIB doctors), but the document mentions snmpModules.235 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC7630 (draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-06) > > -------------------------------------- > > Title : HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in the User-based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3 > > Publication Date : October 2015 > > Author(s) : J. Merkle, Ed., M. Lochter > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > Source : Operations and Management Area Working Group > > Area : Operations and Management > > Stream : IETF > > Verifying Party : IESG > > . > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
