RE: draft status, BoF, replies to issues

["Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Hi,

Some comments:

Section 2.9.6 - 64bit counters per filter may be onerous on switching
devices

Section 2.12.9 - From a security standpoint, this is good practice, and
I personally drink the security koolaid, but not having default
passwords would not be popular with many customers because it increases
the burden of configuring a new device.

Section 2.13 - this, especially coupled with 2.9.6, would be onerous on
a low-end L3/L4 policy switch.

Section 2.4.6 - which is the BCP - SCP, SFTP, or FTP over a secure
channel? Which is best under which circumstances? It would be good to
provide guidance to those who need to decide on one approach, and it
would be best to have a consistent answer to the question about which to
use. (i.e. BEST current practice?)

David Harrington            
dbh@enterasys.com
co-chair, IETF SNMPv3 WG, concluded


> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Jones [mailto:gmj@pobox.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 9:16 AM
> To: opsec@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: draft status, BoF, replies to issues
> 
> OK.  It's been quite here.  Status of things is the -03 draft went to
> IESG last call.  There have bee a number of comments in the id tracker
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vi
> ew_id&dTag=10387&rfc_flag=0)
> as well as in other fora (routing-discuss mailing list, etc.) and
> private mail to me.  I'm going to try to clear out the backlog and
> respond to all issues raised, CCing this list with all responses.
> 
> The doc apparently got a very mixed reception and there was enough
> concern in the IESG that they've scheduled a BoF to discuss 
> what to do.
> Likely options seem to be (in no particular order): nothing, spin up a
> working group, publish current doc (with revisions) as an info RFC and
> spin up a working group, revise current draft and publish as BCP rfc.
> 
> As I've said all along, I will do whatever the wise Area Directors,
> IESG, etc. see best.  I'm in this to produce useful substance in
> whatever form makes sense.
> 
> I will not be @ the BoF (though I might be able to do Jabber or AIM if
> someone who will be there sets it up.)
> 
> Thanks to all who have read the draft and provided feedback
> 
> Responses to follow.
> 
> George M. Jones    |  Gulta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe 
> cadendo ("The drop
>                    |  hollows the stone not by force but by 
> often falling")
>                    |
>                    |      Ovid (Latimer, 7th sermon)
> 
>