Re: draft-ietf-ppvpn-requirements-05.txt

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

> RFC1777 is HISTORIC (as per RFC3494).

can we fix that with an RFC ed note?

> But should we really be "pushing" PIB for management?

I expect that an rfc ed note could change the "(MIBs or PIBs)" to 
"(e.g. MIBs)" or "(MIBs)"

Scott


---
>From bwijnen@lucent.com  Thu Mar  6 09:26:53 2003
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "Scott Bradner (E-mail)" <sob@harvard.edu>,
   "Iesg (E-mail)"
	 <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: draft-ietf-ppvpn-requirements-05.txt
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:26:42 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"


Page 10 and 11, I see two times:

                     It may use a combination of proprietary network
   management system, SNMP manager, or directory service (e.g., LDAP
   [RFC1777] [RFC2251]).

RFC1777 is HISTORIC (as per RFC3494).
So is it wise to keep that reference in a new RFC describing
requirements?

  7.6 Network Management Techniques
     Each PPVPN solution approach must specify the management or policy
     information bases (MIBs or PIBS) for network elements involved in

The "must" is lower case, so I can live with it.
But should we really be "pushing" PIB for management?

Copyright statement on page 46 says 1999
Copyright on page 1 says 2000

Oh well...

Bert