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

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

Inline
> 
> > RFC1777 is HISTORIC (as per RFC3494).
> 
> can we fix that with an RFC ed note?
> 
Sure. Propose one.

> > 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)"
> 
Yep... Make it (e.g. MIB modules).

aside: There is only ONE MIB, which is composed of multiple (many)
       MIB modules
       Same for PIB and PIB modules.

> 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 
>