RE: Comments from the meeting on Monday and the draft

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I am not as fast in reacting as Randy (I have no idea how
can so quickly read/grasp and comment on all these emails
during an IETF week... oh well).

Thanks for these constructive comments. 
Especially your offer to contribute text. Go for it!

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip J. Nesser II [mailto:phil@Nesser.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:05 AM
> To: ops-nm@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Comments from the meeting on Monday and the draft
> 
> 
> I just wanted to make a few comments that I took away from 
> the meeting, as well as a few comments on the current draft 
> (-01).  Hopefully they can spark some discussions.
> 
> First I think that a lot of the confusion that I sensed at 
> the meeting was because of a clear lack of scope in the 
> document.  I have been there at 2, 3, 4 in the morning 
> balancing the laptop on whatever semiflat surface was 
> available so I have a pretty good idea where this is coming 
> from, but I suspect that a lot of people are having problems 
> with this.  I think adding a fair amount of text to the 
> introduction would solve the problem.
> 
> It should (IMHO) include the following discussions:
> 
> 1.  A brief discussion of the specific problem being addressed.  
> 2.  A brief discussion of an overall network management 
> framework and how this little piece fits into the overall 
> picture.  (For example, mention SNMP, MIBs, Route Servers, 
> Routing Registries, Policy based systems, COPS, etc.)
> 3.  Scope of the types of 
> 
> I know it sounds like an ambitious task but it doesn't have 
> to be more than a few paragraphs to put everything into 
> perspective.  I would even be happy to contribute the text.
> 
> A general comment on the use of terms like MUST, SHOULD, MAY, 
> etc...  I found the use to be somewhat loose.  On a similar 
> note.  When you specify things then you should also provide 
> alternatives and make sure you have complete details.  Like 
> in the section on console ports.  It says RJ45 connector 
> running at 9600 baud.  First, give the pin layouts for the 
> RJ45 pins.  I am guessing that you want them to be the same 
> as Cisco's console port.  If there is a standard pin layout 
> defined in another standard that I am not aware of just 
> reference it.  Second, you may want to add something like 
> "MAY support other standard baud rates."  The way it is 
> written it implies that no other speeds are acceptible.
> 
> I think that it owuld help to move discussions of security to 
> its own section.  Some of the logic is also flawed.  For 
> example, I don't think it is consistent to "SHOULD NOT" the 
> use of FTP because it sends passwords in the clear and still 
> allow telnet which also sends the passwords in the clear.  
> Don't allow telnet because MS does not come with an SSH 
> client by default.  There are plenty of freely available SSH 
> clients for all windows platforms.  Either allow both or 
> disallow both.  
> 
> It also says "This configuration MUST contain any private 
> keys, passwords, or shared secrets associated with the 
> device, in strongly-encrypted form."  Define "strongly-encrypted".  
> 
> I would add a comment in the section on RECOMMENDING that 
> prelogin banner not be displayed I would add a note that 
> REQUIRES the ability to turn them off if the vendor does not 
> follow the RECOMMENDATION.
> 
> On the use of numerical codes (ala SMTP) its hard to see how 
> the current text can lead to anything but confusion.  
> Recommending it to vendors will only result in *maybe* 
> someone implementing it and then there would be no standard 
> response codes.  Either take it on as a work item and define 
> at least the general classifications or drop it.  Don't leave 
> it in as an off the cuff comment.  It doesn't have to be in 
> this document, it could be in another.
> 
> Also as to the document final status.  I want to know if 
> people have seriously considered different status than 
> Informational.  There are plusses and minus in my mind about 
> both Proposed and BCP.
> 
> Just my initial observations.  Hopefully some discussion can start.
> 
> --->  Phil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>