RFC 4671, "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6", August 2006

Errata ID: 879
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Rejected by: Dan Romascanu
Date Rejected: 2009-09-03

misleading RFC title, including abuse of defined terms 
(for RFCs 4668 - 4671)

IMHO, the RFC titles, "RADIUS ... MIB for IPv6" are misleading.
In fact, the new RFCs extend the RADIUS MIB modules to cover
IPv6, but they are not IPv6 specific!
Perhaps, better wording would have been "... for IPv4 and IPv6".

Furthermore, a very 'popular' clash of terms shines up here.
As specified in RFC 3410 and Part 1 of STD 62, RFC 3411, and
re-stated in the boilerplate Section 3, "The Internet-Standard
Management Framework", of all four RFCs, there's just one single
Management Information Base (MIB) comprised of various "MIB modules".
Thus, throughout the titles and the text bodies of the RFCs, the
proper term, "RADIUS ... MIB module" should be used instead of the
rather sluggish "RADIUS ... MIB".

Notes:

from pending
--VERIFIER NOTES--
no title change needed - ipv6 covers also previous ipv4 support

Report New Errata