Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework
draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2-04

Revision 04 still needs one FIX:

> I see (In the MIB REVISION clause)
>                    Changed the name of 'snmpCommunityGroup' to a name
>                    conflict with the SNMPv2-MIB.
> Should that be:
>                    Changed the name of 'snmpCommunityGroup' to
>                    snmpCommunityTableGroup to avoid a name conflict
>                    with the SNMPv2-MIB.

As reported by Mike Heard

>To: "Harrington, David"  >From: Russ Mundy  >Subject: Re: draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2-03 Dave, You may have already notified folks outside of the WG about the erroneous request of progressing -03 to RFC but I didn't see it in my inbox. So i thought that it would be good to make sure that the rfc-ed & IESG-secretary also got the word that we're waiting for -04 revision before progressing to to RFC. Russ At 11:25 AM -0400 5/5/03, Harrington, David wrote: >Hi, > >The SNMPv3 working group has completed WG last call on >draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2-03, and would like to submit the draft for >publication as a Best Current Practice RFC. This is an update to RFC >2576. > >Thank you, >David Harrington >Russ Mundy >chairs, SNMPv3 WG >--- >David Harrington Network Management Architect >dbh@enterasys.com Office of the CTO >+1 603 337 2614 - voice Enterasys Networks >+1 603 332 1524 - fax Rochester NH, USA

Bert sez:

It is the WG's last deliverable. The RFC2576 is at PS.

They are trying to finalize this thing (which will replace 2576)but they want to go for BCP or Informational.

I think that is the best path forward, and then we can close the WG.

I think this doc is ready for WG Last Call, and I expect little (if any) issues